Metal Reviews :: View topic - hit or miss: New Plan

Bush is talking about attacking Iran and Syria now. He's not talking about fixing things in Iraq.

Something needs to be done on a large scale in Iraq, I think bush is on the right track by strengthening (sp?) the forces there but it won't be enough. I'd like to see international forces step in as well. The "it's Americas mess, let them handle it" point has been proven and now an ally of ours needs help. It's been a long time since the invasion and it's in everybodys interest to see that country stabilized.

I just don't want to see it plunge into a full out civil war where the most brutal leader will rise to power and all will have been for nothing.

Tompa wrote:

Um, what the fuck? It's been a coalition since the start, and whilst the US may hog all the news, British and other soldiers are still dying. There Will Be No Stability. This isn't Ireland, stepping out won't mean the insurgents suddenly go political. This is jihad.

I wish the Crusades never happened...

I honestly believe that America can't win this war.

Tompa wrote:

Zad wrote:

Tompa wrote:

I'm talking about the European Union, I know British forces are there as well but there isn't really a whole lot of anything else.

Author:	unknownkadath666 [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:05 am ]
Post subject:	hit or miss: New Plan
After bush anounced the new plan for Iraq, what was you folks opinion of it? i think that a 20% increase in forces wont do anything and is far from "a surge". And the plan of spreading them in mini bases around the capital will result in a month will probably result in a month of bloodshed on par with vietnam, followed by a pull out of all of those bases. wait, all the military comanders were just replaced by New cronies. They will probably keep in the mini bases .

Author:	Eyesore [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:37 am ]
Post subject:
I think Keith Olbermann said it best the other night: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16583889/from/ET Doesn't get any more accurate than that.

Author:	Anonymous [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Something needs to be done on a large scale in Iraq, I think bush is on the right track by strengthening (sp?) the forces there but it won't be enough. I'd like to see international forces step in as well. The "it's Americas mess, let them handle it" point has been proven and now an ally of ours needs help. It's been a long time since the invasion and it's in everybodys interest to see that country stabilized. I just don't want to see it plunge into a full out civil war where the most brutal leader will rise to power and all will have been for nothing.

Author:	Anonymous [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:20 pm ]
Post subject:
Yes, something needs to be done. They need to sterilise and deport every Iraqi, demolish every small hovel, and transform the bigger ones into hotels with reasonable prices for capitalistic tourists. Apart from that, I don't see any other option.

Author:	Caligula_K [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:
I really don't think this minimal a troop increase will help. I think its time to consider ending the Iraqi state; things can't continue like this. One Shiite state, one Sunni state might help, though of course, it would need a lot of careful planning.

Metal Reviews https://metalreviews.com/phpBB/

hit or miss: New Plan https://metalreviews.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8404	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Eyesore [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Bush is talking about attacking Iran and Syria now. He's not talking about fixing things in Iraq.

Author:	North From Here [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:47 pm ]
Post subject:
Eyesore wrote: Bush is talking about attacking Iran and Syria now. He's not talking about fixing things in Iraq. And I don't see how the military could handle that simultaneously without a draft.

Author:	rio [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:14 am ]
Post subject:
Wow, I can't even begin to imagine what kind of mind would think an invasion of Iran would be anything but a catastrophe, unless it is the kind of mind that just enjoys seeing thousands of people die (not suggesting anyone has argued this in the thread, just that I have seen several people do so elsewhere) I'm not sure how dividing Iraq into Sunni and Shia states would be placed into practice, as I think (although am not sure) that is not a clear enough territorial divide- ie you couldn't draw religiously homogenous borders without forcing millions of people to move house. I guess the standard Euro-leftist suggestion is simply to say GET OUT, GET THE FUCK OUT NOW!!!!!111 although I don't feel qualified to say that without having seen the situation on the ground there myself. I honestly don't believe anyone but Iraqi citizens know for sure whether coalition troops are making their lives better or worse.

Author:	Caligula_K [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:17 am ]
Post subject:
Eyesore wrote: Bush is talking about attacking Iran and Syria now. He's not talking about fixing things in Iraq. Talk about taking a quote out of context. He said that he would attack Iranian and Syrian connections in Iraq that were contributing to the chaos.

Author:	unknownkadath666 [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:34 am ]
Post subject:
yeah, but without the diplomacy with iran and syria it will probably degrade to full conflict

Author:	Goat [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:55 am ]
Post subject:
How anyone can think that sending more troops to Iraq will help is beyond me. Fridge is a lot more right than people want to admit -Bush may well be an insane, Bible-thumping Armageddon-bringer. Then again, he might just be a bit of a prat. I honestly believe that America can't win this war. Exactly the same thing happened in Vietnam, and eventually they'll pull out, tail between their legs. By then, however, both Bush and Blair will be out of office, and be leaving the mess for (hopefully) Ming Campbell and whichever's the best of the Americano hopefuls (what's this Barack Obama guy like?) to clean up. Dividing Iraq, from what we've seen so far, is going to make Israel/Palestine look like childplay. There's no easy solution, at all. Getting out now may b the best solution, but part of me really wants to see both sides (our lot as well) being weakened to the point of forcing peace. Then again, enter the Chinese, and Koreans... Interesting times... I can perfectly well see Iran and Syria being invaded next, at least there's some justification for it. Perhaps by then, both Brits and Americans will be so fed up with the loss of life that we'll refuse to send anyone else, thus insuring the rise of radical Islam and our ultimate enslavement (if you believe Stuck Mojo, anyhow... ). Or maybe things will go on as before, since Islam's been pretty fucking radical since Saladin's days, and any modern attempt at a crusade has about the same moral justification as it did back then?

Author:	Goat [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:01 am ]
Post subject:
Tompa wrote: Something needs to be done on a large scale in Iraq, I think bush is on the right track by strengthening (sp?) the forces there but it won't be enough. I'd like to see international forces step in as well. The "it's Americas mess, let them handle it" point has been proven and now an ally of ours needs help. It's been a long time since the invasion and it's in everybodys interest to see that country stabilized. I just don't want to see it plunge into a full out civil war where the most brutal leader will rise to power and all will have been for nothing. Um, what the fuck? It's been a coalition since the start, and whilst the US may hog all the news, British and other soldiers are still dying. There Will Be No Stability. This isn't Ireland, stepping out won't mean the insurgents suddenly go political. This is jihad.

Author:	North From Here [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:19 am ]
Post subject:
I wish the Crusades never happened...

Author:	Tlaloc [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:12 am ]
Post subject:
emperorblackdoom wrote: I wish the Crusades never happened... I wish that our world leaders actually learned about the Crusades.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC + 1 hour
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	rio [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:
Zad wrote: I honestly believe that America can't win this war. Hmmm it appears that we have rather inadvertantly created more than one war. Three, potentially four, by my calculations! Afghanistan, Iraq and maybe Somalia, and then of course there is the slightly vaguer "war on terror", although that seems to bear little relation to any of the other three.

Author:	Anonymous [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Zad wrote: Tompa wrote: Something needs to be done on a large scale in Iraq, I think bush is on the right track by strengthening (sp?) the forces there but it won't be enough. I'd like to see international forces step in as well. The "it's Americas mess, let them handle it" point has been proven and now an ally of ours needs help. It's been a long time since the invasion and it's in everybodys interest to see that country stabilized. I just don't want to see it plunge into a full out civil war where the most brutal leader will rise to power and all will have been for nothing. Um, what the fuck? It's been a coalition since the start, and whilst the US may hog all the news, British and other soldiers are still dying. There Will Be No Stability. This isn't Ireland, stepping out won't mean the insurgents suddenly go political. This is jihad. I'm talking about the European Union, I know British forces are there as well but there isn't really a whole lot of anything else.

Author:	Astaroth [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:
Tompa wrote: Zad wrote: Tompa wrote: Something needs to be done on a large scale in Iraq, I think bush is on the right track by strengthening (sp?) the forces there but it won't be enough. I'd like to see international forces step in as well. The "it's Americas mess, let them handle it" point has been proven and now an ally of ours needs help. It's been a long time since the invasion and it's in everybodys interest to see that country stabilized. I just don't want to see it plunge into a full out civil war where the most brutal leader will rise to power and all will have been for nothing. Um, what the fuck? It's been a coalition since the start, and whilst the US may hog all the news, British and other soldiers are still dying. There Will Be No Stability. This isn't Ireland, stepping out won't mean the insurgents suddenly go political. This is jihad. I'm talking about the European Union, I know British forces are there as well but there isn't really a whole lot of anything else. uhm... thanks alot for totally ignoring your neighbours - we actaully have 450 soldiers down there, and these are no regular soldiers, they have superpowers (they are so good they don't even need proper equipment), that's why Bush is so happy about our prime minister - else it would seem rather pointless to waste time on him and say how happy he is to have him as a partner, right?

Author:	Anonymous [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:
What the fuck, am I supposed to include every damn nation with soldiers in Iraq? All I wanted to express was that the effort needs to be more international, more countries should be involved starting with the European Union. Sheesh.

Author:	Goat [ Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:36 am ]
Post subject:
Tompa wrote: I'm talking about the European Union, I know British forces are there as well but there isn't really a whole lot of anything else. Yes, but I fail to see what difference a few more, say, Frenchmen would make, other than in terms of making the Iraqis think the whole world is against them, and thus fight even more desperately? C'est possible... And Charles, many wars = world war III?