Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Why this war will end soon (my opinion)
- Thread starter Razorguns
- Start date
justchilling
New member
interesting, by the way the iraqi population are highly educated. before we invaded iraq they had more college grads per capita than the us. every one there in ther 30 's and older have a college degree. just my 2 cents
M
Megalomaniac
Guest
heatherrae said:
they better bring someone besides Hil because she won't make it in.
As for the war ending you are correct but your reasons are only kinda accurate. We didn't fund the war from future Iraqi rev, we funded it from China(look into it you'll see). Our goal in Iraq wasn't revenue based it was to keep China and Russia from getting that oil. However you are correct in that the war will end and it will end because of fund appropriation, we won't stop spending but only use the money for something else.
Razorguns
Well-known member
sfmonster said:
true. American oil companies were fearing other countries might start getting iraqi oil. A few interesting quotes from Cheney in 1999 confirm this.
As for china's loans - it wasn't a donation. They wanna be paid back. And we will. Slowly perhaps, but we will. Even if we have to overpay for walmart shit for the next 50 years. We will.
And our increasing of debt to pay for this clusterfuck is one of the reasons our dollar is falling like fuck. It's not just a 'coincidence'. Not only are americans overburdened with debt (can't wait to see suckers with $600k mortgages on $400k homes) but so is the govt.
The next administration is gonna have it's work cut out for them. You couldn't pay me enough to be the next President.
r
Saintinistic
New member
what war? it was a one sided invasion. regardless of the motives it was an invasion into a land that doesnt want the US there. freeing the people with western influence only caused grief as they are not westerners with western thinking. who the hell thought democracy works for everyone, hell... it doesnt work for the west!
the people of Iraq have spoken, and the deaths are still speaking. trying to get rid of terrorism is like trying to eliminate rats from the corn fields... good luck with that chasing of your tail.
any western guidance only makes the government there look like a weak one relying on the West. too many people have died on both sides for bullshit and my heart goes out to their families.
replacing a tyrant with the West never changed a thing, it only replaced one view of 'peace' with another.
leave them to their futures, governed by themselves. send the troops home. to save one more life is worth sending them back. all deaths in battle are wasted, but especially if there is no winner.
the people of Iraq have spoken, and the deaths are still speaking. trying to get rid of terrorism is like trying to eliminate rats from the corn fields... good luck with that chasing of your tail.
any western guidance only makes the government there look like a weak one relying on the West. too many people have died on both sides for bullshit and my heart goes out to their families.
replacing a tyrant with the West never changed a thing, it only replaced one view of 'peace' with another.
leave them to their futures, governed by themselves. send the troops home. to save one more life is worth sending them back. all deaths in battle are wasted, but especially if there is no winner.
M
Megalomaniac
Guest
Razorguns said:
OK so now we agree a bit but what were we to do about the situation in the first place. See here is where my problem lies with people compaining, anyone can sit back and complain about the way something went but what was a better option? What route should we have gone and then once that question is answered then face the question on what we do from here. If one can answer both of those questions logically then I will start to listen to their complaints, otherwise it is just rambling to be heard.
Razorguns
Well-known member
Saintinistic said:
that and douchebag Bush made two massive mistakes
1) surrounding himself with old white military-raised men to tell him about 'iraq'. old white men don't know what goes through the minds of young male arabs in far away poor countries. He should've surrounded himself with iraqi-americans. They could've told him on day 1 about 'secretarian strife'
2) he had the war run by a businessman - Rumsfeld. Now he's 'listening to generals on the ground'. Too little, too late. For years he listened to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. And 3,000 lives paid the price, with zero progress to show for it.
the war'll be over by next year. If you're a democrat, you can only HOPE AND DREAM that Bush keeps troops over there. That way, the us voters can massacre the republicans in nov. If you're a republican - you can only HOPE Bush starts sending troops home soon, so you might have a tiny weeny bit of hope to win in nov.
Pelosi is smart. She's mind-fucking Bush the way she wants him. She knows Bush is arrogant, and by keeping 'bring the troops home' a DEMOCRAT agenda - Bush keeps rejecting it. Which is what she wants. And in nov - republicans will be slaughtered cuz of that. Pelosi isn't an idiot.
The last thing she wants is for the troops to come home. Then the nov election is up in the air.
r
Longhorn85
New member
Razorguns said:
1) that scenario you laid out is still a good one for long term US interests, even if it happens in 2015 instead of 2008.
2) It not only costs a bundle to fight a war, it costs a bundle to end a war. So we are going to have to find some money somewhere anyway. Might as well finish the job for the sake of long term interests.
To go back to your business model: the war is already a sunk cost.
Similar threads
