Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Obviously, USA can either stay in Iraq or pull out, but both options are wrong.

1. USA stays. The terrorists will continue their bombings in retaliation to the presence of "foreign invaders". As the war goes on, generations and generations of angry fundamentalists will take up the arms and wreak havoc against civilians.

2. USA leaves. Iraq becomes a haven for terrorists. Soon, a full-fledged civil war will break out and a violent islamist revolution is probably inevitable.

Conclusion: stupid war, Iraq is screwed no matter what, USA fucked up.

There's other options, too, among which this seems like the best:

USA Stays, adds a couple hundred thousand troops – it worked for the Brits

People claim no progress.

Yet everytime I read a news article it's went from "US forces" to "US and Iraqi army and Police forces".

At 5/31/07 06:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: USA Stays, adds a couple hundred thousand troops

I doubt it will work. While it's important to understand that Iraq cannot be left completely void of military power, adding US troops might only be more heat to the flames. What I think should be the next course of action, is sending international peace keepers to Iraq, serving under the UN flag. Of course, many insurgents wouldn't find that much more convenient, seeing as they probably consider the United Nations to be part of the same American imperialism as US troops, and still continue their terrorist activities. However, if these UN troops mainly consisted of people from Muslim nations, it might be a little more acceptable to the fundamentals in the country. Anyway, I doubt even that could bring peace quickly to Iraq, but it might be the right way to start.

The problem is, no matter what is made with the situation in Iraq, that country will most likely remain in deep shit for several decades to come.

Iraq, like other things that won't be specifically mentioned, can be summed up like so:

If you pull out, you feel bad, but it ends up being the better choice. Besides, you still might have a small presence there.

If you don't pull out, either everything gets worse and you have to have a messy abortion or you have to just stick around and pay support for your entire life.

I believe you have the two endings mixed up.

The Iraqis are just shooting at each other, and we're jumping in front of the bullets (and roadside bombs). It honestly IS a civil war now. Let's get the hell out of there before we lose any more.

At 5/31/07 08:46 AM, bcdemon wrote: Then you "all" are a bunch of ignorant idiots who can't read simple text.

I can remember(memorize and tal-con most likely) all that ass-kissing you did for the insurgents in the Official Bush Topic. Don't bullshit me, pal.

At 5/30/07 07:39 PM, Tukie wrote: lets just hope there isnt a draft

since army strong, marines, airforce, navy, etc adds are running 24/7 on TV... its getting close.

but we can hope it never happens.

In a simple answer no. In a long complicated solution that will take years and money in a way yes. If the Iraqi military and police are trained and equipped well enough to take out insurgents not ALL of which are terrorists a lot of it's organized crime, eventually they will be able to deal with it themselves slow it down and we can pull out, but unlike the publics idea of victory this isn't a stand up war. It's a guerrilla war and noone knows who's on what side traditional victory is not possible, the Iraqis need to be able to fight this problem without foreign aid.

What we need to do is educate the people in Iraq. I mean, they get information shoved down their throats everyday: "America is bad. Go kill them", it's almost like propaganda.

At 5/31/07 09:18 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 5/31/07 08:46 AM, bcdemon wrote: Then you "all" are a bunch of ignorant idiots who can't read simple text.

I can remember(memorize and tal-con most likely) all that ass-kissing you did for the insurgents in the Official Bush Topic. Don't bullshit me, pal.

Like I said, ignorant fuckin idiots who can't read simple text. I never once stated that I was pro-terrorist, EVER, as you claimed. I do however support the Iraqi born insurgents fighting against the US occupation. Same way I would have sided with the Polish insurgents during WW2 had I been alive. Get your facts straight, pal.

At 6/1/07 07:48 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Get your facts straight, pal.

Iraqi born insurgents sometimes kill people too.

There's just, not as many of them now. Especially since Al Queda seems to love torturing everyone which ultimately pissed them off too recently.

It's possible yes, but the government leaders in this country disagree about whether we should stay. This gives the insurgents fuel for the fight. They believe we are crumbling, and if they keep up what they're doing, we'll pull out, and they can take control.

You see, these guys have 2 goals.
1) Drive the US out of Iraq.
2) Take full control of Iraq.

Once we withdraw, they will stage a massive coup against what little government is in place in Iraq. It will be back to what it was like when Saddam ruled. We shouldn't have gone in in the first place, but we're there now, and we have to finish this. Withdrawing now is like taking a dump and only wiping halfway, there's still shit to clean up, and it will soil your pants. (pants= US reputation, which isn't that great in the first place, unfortunately) If we stay committed, and push hard we can defeat them.

As previously stated, we shouldn't have gone in, we secondhandedly raped that country and now we're just gonna leave? No, regardless of our true intentions, we told the Iraqi people we would help them set up a new, safe Iraq. A democratic Iraq where the people have rights. Everybody's always saying the Iraqis don't like this. That couldn't be farther from the truth. about 90% of the Shiits (sp?) and Kurds like and support us. Somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of the Suni population is against us. The Al Qaeda in Iraq are Sunis and if I remember correctly, Saddam was a Suni. These insurgents threaten and attack local populations to put the war in their favor.

I once hard something along the lines of "A beaten dog may fear you, but as soon as you turn your back, he'll strike, he does not respect you". There is a difference in the two. Most people respect us, if we ask them to take up arms and defend themselves against the insurgents, its likely that they would proudly do it.

So to answer your question, we can win, because we are obligated to.

The Iraq war is a pointless waste of money, manpower, and time. There is no way to win a war like this, especially if all we're doing is stirring up trouble anyway. Besides, the terrorists didn't come from Iraq, they came from other countries in that region. No we need to hightail it back home as fast as we can. Those people have been fighting each other since the beginning of time and they're going to keep at it until the end of time. It was plain stupid to stick our nose where it didn't belong.

No, we are now engaging with the populace not one single military entity. We pissed off the middle east big time. Maybe we should have treated them a little better.Instead of saying we would free them, bring democracy, and end up blowing up most of the country, and getting thousands upon thousands of humans killed.

i would say no we took the country and now were dealing with an enemy that is blending in with the civilions and as long as there sucide bombers and people laying bombs at the side of the road than its useless

personally i think there is no logical reason for us to be over there, besides the oil.
i think we already lost but won't admit it so we need to get out of there and sent our troops home and let the middle east do its thing.
we've help enough

Have fun with this interview everyone

At 5/30/07 05:35 PM, ErwinR0mmel wrote: So to win against the terrorists the troops would have to stay.

You can't defeat the terrorists in Iraq, theres literaly tons, all of them making thier own groups, and branching and branching.
They also have branches outside the country, and I don't see how the Americans are going to kill them.
Also, the Iraqi goverment is nothing without the Americans. Just a few weeks ago we heard of the bomb that exploded in the cafeteria. If the Americans go, the county will go into a huge civil war.
Bush made a big mistake by sending his troops into a huge mess.

At 6/3/07 04:12 AM, Storm wrote:

Bush made a big mistake by sending his troops into a huge mess.

You see the post above you, made by me?

It's a link to an interview of a soldier who's in Iraq and how he and others believe the war is going.

Listen to it.

At 6/1/07 07:48 AM, bcdemon wrote: Like I said, ignorant fuckin idiots who can't read simple text.

If this were true then none of us would be able to take in your bullshit, not would we?

I never once stated that I was pro-terrorist, EVER, as you claimed.

I never said you claimed to be pro-terrorist, we believe you ARE pro-terrorist.

I do however support the Iraqi born insurgents fighting against the US occupation.

Then you're pro-terrorist, asshole. You support the guys that get support from al-Qaeda, Syria and Palestine. These same type of people you support would have no conjunction with slitting the throats of you and your family for being a heathen.

Same way I would have sided with the Polish insurgents during WW2 had I been alive. Get your facts straight, pal.

Stupid as ever, I see.

There is no leader, there is no person to be after. They are constantly being born, and they are born hating. No, i dont know the reason why they hate each other, but unless we wipe out an entire race, then no. There is no way to win.

At 6/3/07 04:09 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/1/07 07:48 AM, bcdemon wrote: I never once stated that I was pro-terrorist, EVER, as you claimed.

I never said you claimed to be pro-terrorist, we believe you ARE pro-terrorist.

Let me get this straight here. I have stated on numerous occasions that I am not pro-terrorist nor do I condone their actions, yet you believe I am pro-terrorist. Like I said, fucking idiot who cannot read simple text.

I do however support the Iraqi born insurgents fighting against the US occupation.

Then you're pro-terrorist, asshole. You support the guys that get support from al-Qaeda, Syria and Palestine. These same type of people you support would have no conjunction with slitting the throats of you and your family for being a heathen.

No, I support the guy who has had his and his families life turned upside down and backwards by your countries invasion and occupation. I support the guy who seeks revenge for having his family taken away from him because of your countries invasion/occupation. I don't support the guy who travels from your second best Middle East allie, Saudi Arabia to blow up innocent people just because they are a Shiite and not a Sunni. I don't support the people who are killing innocent Iraqis. I support the people who don't want to live with a permanant US military base in their backyard. And I think you putting everyday Iraqis in the same distinction as terrorists just shows your ignorance.

Same way I would have sided with the Polish insurgents during WW2 had I been alive. Get your facts straight, pal.

Stupid as ever, I see.

So, supporting the lil guy who is getting forced to live under an occupation is stupid?
Not in my books.

At 6/5/07 08:58 AM, bcdemon wrote:

I support the guy who seeks revenge for having his family taken away from him because of your countries invasion/occupation.

Not much difference. Considering they're both blowin people up.

Well, I don't think it was a good idea to invade Iraq, however, the main reason for that was the fact that the civil war/insurgency could be too much to handle. The cause of the oppression of the Iraqi people is not that the U.S./new government has authority is in control, it is the unnecessary violence being perpetrated. Neither bombing each other OR bombing American troops is making anything better for the Iraqis. bcdemon, I'm glad you're not supporting the murder of innocent civilians, however, you should know that when the insurgents who only fight the U.S. troop presence (not exactly the majority) attack, they are not doing the Iraqi people any service. If there was nobody was creating that violence the government could progress and become more efficient by doing other things, like building infrastructure (instead of just having the U.S. give no-bid contracts to Cheney's friends over at Halliburton).

One of the main reasons the Iraq War shouldn't have been started is because of the insurgency. That makes the insurgency part of the root of the problem. Therefore, the insurgency should not be supported because it is detrimental to the progress of Iraq by diverting government resources from actually rebuilding the country and maintaining peace.
Remember the initial euphoria after Iraq was liberated from Ba'athist rule? We can surmise:

Iraq+Saddam Hussein= sucks
Iraq-Saddam Hussein+insurgency=also sucks
Iraq-Saddasm Hussein and insurgency=a whole lot freakin better

The problem is multi-faceted, and the insurgency is multi-faceted. The Polish resistance was helping to fight Nazi Germany while other forces were coming in to help take them out and therefore contributing to the war effort. Poland before Nazi Germany was better. They were trying to return Poland to a better time. The Iraqi insurgents are only pushing progress backwards. The current regime in Iraq would be better than Saddam Hussein EXCEPT that the insurgency makes it worse. In Poland the current regime was many times worse than the previous Polish regime; and the resistance was fighting a war to help bring it back, and they actually had allied support.

So basically, in my opinion, by supporting the insurgency, you are supporting what makes the current regime of Iraq worse, and as some would say (and do say), an even worse regime than that of Saddam Hussein. No offense, I'm just saying that the violence (and the subsequent military crackdowns resulting from the violence) are one of the main reasons many Iraqis find the current situation worse than what it was before the 2003 war.

At 6/5/07 08:58 AM, bcdemon wrote: Let me get this straight here. I have stated on numerous occasions that I am not pro-terrorist nor do I condone their actions, yet you believe I am pro-terrorist. Like I said, fucking idiot who cannot read simple text.

Let me get this straight here. I've stated numerous times I am not human nor do I behave like a human, yet you still believe I am human?

No, I support the guy who has had his and his families life turned upside down and backwards by your countries invasion and occupation. I support the guy who seeks revenge for having his family taken away from him because of your countries invasion/occupation.

If you actually believe this is who the insurgents are then you're more delusional than those people at Waco. Thes guys don't fight to oppose oppression, they fight to instill their form of a theocracy. These are the same guys that use child nurseries and public mosques as hiding area. They fight to place an Islamic tyranny similar in Egypt and most of the Middle East. These aren't farmers, they're Sunni militants, asshole.

In essence, you're a hypocrite. I'll consider you a leftwinger for how vehemently pro-terrorist you seem to be, well aren't these insurgents you support the same group that would strip away every right you hold sacrosanct? If the US prevails a democratic republic will emerge, if the insurgents prevail a theocratic dictatorship will germinate.

I don't support the guy who travels from your second best Middle East allie, Saudi Arabia to blow up innocent people just because they are a Shiite and not a Sunni.

They both use the same methods and have a common end.

I don't support the people who are killing innocent Iraqis.

They both do the samething.

I support the people who don't want to live with a permanant US military base in their backyard.

Whether you realize it or not, the US can leave when the job gets done. So let me get this straight, you want the Us military to leave, but you support the group that is causing it to stay?

And I think you putting everyday Iraqis in the same distinction as terrorists just shows your ignorance.

So, supporting the lil guy who is getting forced to live under an occupation is stupid?
Not in my books.

And I think you painting an unrealistic image of the insurgents is not only stupid, but pathetic. These guys care absolutely nothing for the lives of their countrymen. This is evidenced by the fact they use women and children as bait/human shields. You want to believe so desperately that we're the problem here, but we're not. They are the problem, they're the ones causing all the needless death. If violence stopped, the US would have no reason to remain in Iraq, but they continue fighting knowing this.

At 6/5/07 04:17 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/5/07 08:58 AM, bcdemon wrote: Let me get this straight here. I have stated on numerous occasions that I am not pro-terrorist nor do I condone their actions, yet you believe I am pro-terrorist. Like I said, fucking idiot who cannot read simple text.

Let me get this straight here. I've stated numerous times I am not human nor do I behave like a human, yet you still believe I am human?

You're getting close to sharing the IQ of a soil sample. BTW, your analogy is completely fucking retarded.

No, I support the guy who has had his and his families life turned upside down and backwards by your countries invasion and occupation. I support the guy who seeks revenge for having his family taken away from him because of your countries invasion/occupation.

If you actually believe this is who the insurgents are then you're more delusional than those people at Waco.....These aren't farmers, they're Sunni militants, asshole.

See, your ignorance is generalizing all fighters in Iraq as terrorists. And the Shiites and Kurds are doing their fair share of killing aswell, don't lay all the blame on the Sunnis (I know, you only do it because Saddam was Sunni so you think all Sunnis are evil).

In essence, you're a hypocrite. I'll consider you a leftwinger for how vehemently pro-terrorist you seem to be, well aren't these insurgents you support the same group that would strip away every right you hold sacrosanct?

Nah, the guys I support don't give a rats ass about Canada. They are more worried about getting their lives back in order. Normal everyday Iraqis don't want to kill innocent folks, they just want to get their lives back to relative peacefulness, you know, before USA invaded.
And you can call me anything you want, it's just another idiotic, ignorant opinion from someone who supports a war that has killed thousands and thousands of innocent people.

I support the people who don't want to live with a permanant US military base in their backyard.

Whether you realize it or not, the US can leave when the job gets done.

Whether you realize it or not, the USA is building permanent military bases in Iraq. Now what are the chances you are going to build permanent bases and then leave them? Slim to nil.

And I think you painting an unrealistic image of the insurgents is not only stupid, but pathetic. These guys care absolutely nothing for the lives of their countrymen. This is evidenced by the fact they use women and children as bait/human shields. You want to believe so desperately that we're the problem here, but we're not. They are the problem, they're the ones causing all the needless death. If violence stopped, the US would have no reason to remain in Iraq, but they continue fighting knowing this.

I don't have an unrealistic view of the insurgents. I know there are terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Syria killing innocent Iraqis. I know there are Iraq Shiite and Iraqi Sunni death squads killing innocent Iraqis due to their faith. I also know there are Iraqis that are fighting only the US military in opposition to the occupation. It's your unrealistic view that has grouped together everyone in Iraq as a terrorist. It's not a matter of believing you're the problem, it's knowing it. How many suicide bombings were done in Iraq before USA invaded? How many IEDs went off in a busy market in Iraq before the US invasion? The terrorists that are in Iraq now, were not there before you got there. You are the problem.

At 6/5/07 06:26 PM, bcdemon wrote: The terrorists that are in Iraq now, were not there before you got there. You are the problem.

The reason that the U.S. occupation is such a problem is BECAUSE of the violence that ensued. If you take away the violence you take away what is basically the root of the problem. Supporting the insurgency is illogical because that's one of the main reasons the U.S. shouldn't have entered in the first place!

By the way, it's not really nice to refer to us as "you" when our GOVERNMENT ordered the invasion of Iraq. Most of the people do not even support it anymore (and i doubt most supported it before the insurgency).

The actions of a government do not necessarily equal the actions of a people. I didn't vote for Bush. So don't say that I invaded Iraq, because I didn't.

Unless you're just using it as an abbreviation of "the U.S. government", but it seemed like you were trying to blame all the people of the U.S.

honestly i think its all pointless really not only this war but all others why cant we just love, why cant we just leave each other alone, to quote John Lennon "GIVE PEACE A CHANCE, ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE"