Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
It's been proven out - the American public will always accept a certainStuart Mackey wrote: Ohh, I see, a death toll has to be of a certain level to make something ok..intersting theory that
Whether you use a capital W or a little one the war is over. The US is occupying Iraq. At this point the US has Iraq by the balls and no amount of semantics is going to change the fact that. It occupied and the war over. You can wrangle over semantics all you want but the United States of America is in the driver's seat now.The War may be over, but the war isn't. But let's not get into a semantics debate, ok? The protestors shouting "No More War" were clearly refering to the war, not the War.
Those issues aren't dead. How are they dead?
Yes, there are issues that demand answers. But that's not what those protesters were rallying about now was it. Instead they were mostly gathetring to make asses of themselves.Yes, plenty of things to protest about, aren't there?
No,you're trying to change what the protestors said to make them look much less stupid. They want the US to leave Iraq and simply assume everything will be okay. That's a stupid point of veiw they adopted with out ever looking at the real world.Well, if the US did completely pull out, there is no way the UN could muster even a remotely comparable replacement. But you're not reading between the lines. Those protesting UN troop deployments do so because the US is running the show. If it was the UN in charge, there'd be no dramas with sending countrymen as UN troops, under the UN, to Iraq.
\This so called huge civil war which you're predicting won't happen, because if the US pulls out, the UN will move in. And that will silence the majority of these protestors.
I don't care who's driving, that's irrelevent. Sorry, but the war is still on. You're making it out like occupying a country and having it by the balls means no more fighting or resistance. Well that's absolutely not what the reality is over there, and you know it. The Iraqi people have not been won over; peace has not been won; the war is still on. Not against Iraqi soldiers, but against the publics mindset and the resistance. Do you agree, yes or no?Stormbringer wrote:Whether you use a capital W or a little one the war is over. The US is occupying Iraq. At this point the US has Iraq by the balls and no amount of semantics is going to change the fact that. It occupied and the war over. You can wrangle over semantics all you want but the United States of America is in the driver's seat now.The War may be over, but the war isn't. But let's not get into a semantics debate, ok? The protestors shouting "No More War" were clearly refering to the war, not the War.
The issues listed, which were:Those issues aren't dead. How are they dead?
They're dead issues because the war is already done and over with. It's happend and there's not a damn thing they can do about that as much as they'd like to pretend otherwise. The war happened and the US emerged in control of Iraq.
Ah, I see you don't believe in their cause, and think they're a bunch of idiots for fighting for it. Well then. Seeing how you just said there are issues that demand answers, but clearly unrelated to the protestors, what are your issues then?Yes, there are issues that demand answers. But that's not what those protesters were rallying about now was it. Instead they were mostly gathetring to make asses of themselves.Yes, plenty of things to protest about, aren't there?
You clearly have no idea what they want. I suggest you actually listen to there protests before attacking them, or you'll just look stupid for misunderstanding there position.No,you're trying to change what the protestors said to make them look much less stupid. They want the US to leave Iraq and simply assume everything will be okay. That's a stupid point of veiw they adopted with out ever looking at the real world. But hey, why bother with what they said when you can interpret them phsycially?Well, if the US did completely pull out, there is no way the UN could muster even a remotely comparable replacement. But you're not reading between the lines. Those protesting UN troop deployments do so because the US is running the show. If it was the UN in charge, there'd be no dramas with sending countrymen as UN troops, under the UN, to Iraq.
That's a load of horseshit. Again, you failed to comprehend what they said. Obviously you can't silence every protestor, but if the UN where to run things, the overwhelming majority of protestors will be happy with that.The protestors won't allow the UN in under any circumstances.This so called huge civil war which you're predicting won't happen, because if the US pulls out, the UN will move in. And that will silence the majority of these protestors.
You've got no idea what you're talking about.The protestors are demanding nothing less than the complete anbandonment of Iraq.
That most certainly would lead to civil war. Try arguing their actual postion rather than you interpretation of it.
don't make me laugh. Get one thing straight: the type of "war" the protestors are now protesting is obviously not the fucking war which ended a couple of months ago, but the one which is going on right this minute. For their "hearts and minds". To squash the resistance. THAT war. Now, do you agree that a type of war is still waging in Iraq, and that's the one the protestors are protesting against? Yes or no?Stormbringer wrote:BS (how appropriate) are you even interested in real debate or just in making nonsensical one liners?
The facts are simple:
- The US is in control of Iraq and the war is over. The terrorism going on now is not a war.
You still don't get it. The placards refer to todays war. What the fuck makes you think these protestors don't know that the war against the Iraqi troops ended a couple of months ago? Do you really think they're so stupid?The protestors are trying to prevent a war that's over.[/list]
That's enough, now I know where you stand.The issue of accountability for intelligence matter had little to nothing to do with the protests. You can bring it up but stop pretending they did.
I already answered this. Quit snipping my points. Either conceed or put up a rebuttal.And they are calling for the immediate withdrawl of American and British troops while blocking other UN nations from sending in troops under the aegis of the UN.
I'm amazed at how badly you're comprehending their fucking message. You're looking at "Hands of Iraq!" and thinking they're refering to everyone! Don't kid yourself. The message is only for the US.That's their position and no amount of your pithy comebacks is going to change that. Their desire to get out of Iraq would ultimately lead to civil war.
So they're protesting against the peace keeping efforts?Get one thing straight: the type of "war" the protestors are now protesting is obviously not the fucking war which ended a couple of months ago, but the one which is going on right this minute. For their "hearts and minds". To squash the resistance. THAT war. Now, do you agree that a type of war is still waging in Iraq, and that's the one the protestors are protesting against? Yes or no?
Then apparently they're protesting the peace keeping efforts. That's not a lot better than protesting war that's over.You still don't get it. The placards refer to todays war. What the fuck makes you think these protestors don't know that the war against the Iraqi troops ended a couple of months ago? Do you really think they're so stupid?
Again, you were going off on a tanget that had nothing to do with the story. As for my position, I want honest fucking answers. What happens after that depends on what the answer is. But again, this has little relevance to the protests.That's enough, now I know where you stand.
I didn't alter your arguements or even snip them. I simply posted my answer with out bothering to copy and paste your one liners especially since you don't feel the need to quote even whole paragraphs.I already answered this. Quit snipping my points. Either conceed or put up a rebuttal.
Actually, opinion in the populations of most countries is simply to say screw you guys. The governments are willing to take a more enlightened stance but public opinion is a different beast. According to what I've seen they want everyone out of Iraq.I'm amazed at how badly you're comprehending their fucking message. You're looking at "Hands of Iraq!" and thinking they're refering to everyone! Don't kid yourself. The message is only for the US.
If you aren't kidding yourself, and if you have been following the worlds opinions in this matter over the last year or so, the protestors will be silenced if the US gives control over to the UN. US troops will then be welcome [as long as they're in UN uniform]; no more protesting US troops. No more protests either over troop deployments to Iraq to be part of a UN force. Again, because the UN will be running the show.
Stormbringer wrote:So they're protesting against the peace keeping efforts?Get one thing straight: the type of "war" the protestors are now protesting is obviously not the fucking war which ended a couple of months ago, but the one which is going on right this minute. For their "hearts and minds". To squash the resistance. THAT war. Now, do you agree that a type of war is still waging in Iraq, and that's the one the protestors are protesting against? Yes or no?
Yep. Because the US is in charge. If the invasion was, like we all suspect, one massive business venture, we don't want one government setting the country up; we want the world to do it, to make the setup as fair and just as possible.Of course they're still protesting. Why won't the US cede control to the UN? Why did the US invade? Those and questions like them still haven't been answered by the US government without tripping over lies and bullshit. Hence, the protests.Then apparently they're protesting the peace keeping efforts. That's not a lot better than protesting war that's over.You still don't get it. The placards refer to todays war. What the fuck makes you think these protestors don't know that the war against the Iraqi troops ended a couple of months ago? Do you really think they're so stupid?
Right. When you lie to someone, again and again, you don't get understanding and a friend. You get confusion and hostility.Actually, opinion in the populations of most countries is simply to say screw you guys.I'm amazed at how badly you're comprehending their fucking message. You're looking at "Hands of Iraq!" and thinking they're refering to everyone! Don't kid yourself. The message is only for the US.
If you aren't kidding yourself, and if you have been following the worlds opinions in this matter over the last year or so, the protestors will be silenced if the US gives control over to the UN. US troops will then be welcome [as long as they're in UN uniform]; no more protesting US troops. No more protests either over troop deployments to Iraq to be part of a UN force. Again, because the UN will be running the show.
Then you're blind.The governments are willing to take a more enlightened stance but public opinion is a different beast. According to what I've seen they want everyone out of Iraq.
Yes, because clearly it was Sheppard who ordered the troops in and is currently overseeing occupation forces.Stuart Mackey wrote:Shep, its been a cock up since day dot. You didnt go in there witha proper plan for a government and you are not exactly welcome by the local ppopulation. And you have soldiers dying for no appreciable reason.
Thats where they happen to have the troops and the local capability to do something?MKSheppard wrote:Then why is it virtually 95% of all of these guerilla incidents always seemStuart Mackey wrote:you are not exactly welcome by the local ppopulation.
to happen within the "Baghdad Triangle"?
Thats true, but its not soemthing that will last for ever, nor will public tolerance for the amount that is being borrowed to support this adventure.MKSheppard wrote:It's been proven out - the American public will always accept a certainStuart Mackey wrote: Ohh, I see, a death toll has to be of a certain level to make something ok..intersting theory that
amount of casualties before they start questioning the public line - this
resistance level is even higher now that we have an all-volunteer force,
no one is in Iraq because the evil Bushhstappo drafted them and sent
them there.
Say what?Uraniun235 wrote:Yes, because clearly it was Sheppard who ordered the troops in and is currently overseeing occupation forces.Stuart Mackey wrote:Shep, its been a cock up since day dot. You didnt go in there witha proper plan for a government and you are not exactly welcome by the local ppopulation. And you have soldiers dying for no appreciable reason.
'you' refers to the government of the USA, allthough I am sure Shep would love to be President Shep 
I don't think Shep is in the government of the US, so 'you' is still pretty inappropriate, wouldn't you say? Its a nitpick, and I wouldn't bring it up, but I think its a common mistake to think of countries as individuals, rather than collections of individuals.Stuart Mackey wrote:Say what?Uraniun235 wrote:Yes, because clearly it was Sheppard who ordered the troops in and is currently overseeing occupation forces.Stuart Mackey wrote:Shep, its been a cock up since day dot. You didnt go in there witha proper plan for a government and you are not exactly welcome by the local ppopulation. And you have soldiers dying for no appreciable reason.
Forgive me for asking, but what interest does "the world" have in making the setup fair and just? I believe you mean the UN by "the world" and I would ask you to hesitate before putting Syria in charge of human rights in Iraq.BoredShirtless wrote:Stormbringer wrote:So they're protesting against the peace keeping efforts?Get one thing straight: the type of "war" the protestors are now protesting is obviously not the fucking war which ended a couple of months ago, but the one which is going on right this minute. For their "hearts and minds". To squash the resistance. THAT war. Now, do you agree that a type of war is still waging in Iraq, and that's the one the protestors are protesting against? Yes or no?
I, for one, don't think any of the anti-war protestors lied about anything, or at least certainly not intentionaly.Of course they're still protesting. Why won't the US cede control to the UN? Why did the US invade? Those and questions like them still haven't been answered by the US government without tripping over lies and bullshit. Hence, the protests.Then apparently they're protesting the peace keeping efforts. That's not a lot better than protesting war that's over.You still don't get it. The placards refer to todays war. What the fuck makes you think these protestors don't know that the war against the Iraqi troops ended a couple of months ago? Do you really think they're so stupid?Right. When you lie to someone, again and again, you don't get understanding and a friend. You get confusion and hostility.Actually, opinion in the populations of most countries is simply to say screw you guys.I'm amazed at how badly you're comprehending their fucking message. You're looking at "Hands of Iraq!" and thinking they're refering to everyone! Don't kid yourself. The message is only for the US.
If you aren't kidding yourself, and if you have been following the worlds opinions in this matter over the last year or so, the protestors will be silenced if the US gives control over to the UN. US troops will then be welcome [as long as they're in UN uniform]; no more protesting US troops. No more protests either over troop deployments to Iraq to be part of a UN force. Again, because the UN will be running the show.
It is a nitpick, but it is in common usage, when talking of a nation, to ascribe the actions of that nation in the first person or the third. When I speak of NZ in WW2 or even the allied effort I might use 'we' .Symmetry wrote:I don't think Shep is in the government of the US, so 'you' is still pretty inappropriate, wouldn't you say? Its a nitpick, and I wouldn't bring it up, but I think its a common mistake to think of countries as individuals, rather than collections of individuals.Stuart Mackey wrote:Say what?Uraniun235 wrote: Yes, because clearly it was Sheppard who ordered the troops in and is currently overseeing occupation forces.
