valkyrie
- boomtown wrote:
I believe the technical term is "you broke it, you fix it".
The Iraqis don't want occupation soldiers in their country. If they greeted the occupation as liberators than I might agree with you on rebuilding Iraq.
Personally, I never condemn US policy simply because it is US policy. I'm an American too. I'm only a radical opponent of the US government imperial policies, and not only because they harm the entire world, but also because they are bad for the US people. I prefer America to spend billions of dollars on Americans and Africans. With the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan all college students could attend school for free, or all Americans could be completely covered under free health care insurance. It boggles my mind what a waste the immoral occupations of these two countries costs both in innocent blood and money.
boomtown
I believe the technical term is "you broke it, you fix it".
valkyrie
- boomtown wrote:
Which raises an interesting question. When the foreign troops leave - what happens?
Who cares? It's not my concern. All I want is an immediate pullout from Afghanistan and Iraq.
U.S. military casualties have surged in Iraq in recent weeks, with U.S. troops engaging in perilous urban sweeps to curb sectarian violence in Baghdad while facing unrelenting violence elsewhere.
At least 44 U.S. troops have been killed so far in October. At the current pace, the month would be the deadliest for U.S. forces since January 2005. After falling to 43 in July, the U.S. toll rose in August and September before spiking this month. The war's average monthly U.S. death toll is 64.
;_ylt=A0SOwlGUlC5FDNEA1QIWIr0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
I'm sure the jingos will chime in on why we should stay. The United States and her lackie Britain have no right to occupy another nation. Anything less would be supporting imperialism.
jabbajabba
Finally someone with the needed status speaks up. This may not sound like a big deal, but it is massive. It is so rare that a british army General speaks up on a matter of government policy.
I hope its a statement which leads to many spared lives in the future.
boomtown
Which raises an interesting question. When the foreign troops leave - what happens?
jabbajabba
- boomtown wrote:
Which raises an interesting question. When the foreign troops leave - what happens?
Good point.
Perhaps the US will stay there and eventually pull out as well (just like another Vietnam). Hopefully then the country will settle, but past experience suggests that the warlords will start scrapping again until a top dog like sadam pulls line.
I do hope not - the people of Iraq have suffered enough. The main plus will be my work colleagues not having to risk loss of life and limb commuting to work.
Mr & Mrs Inquirer
- jabbajabba wrote:
Finally someone with the needed status speaks up. This may not sound like a big deal, but it is massive. It is so rare that a british army General speaks up on a matter of government policy.
I hope its a statement which leads to many spared lives in the future.
Yes we hope its leads to many spared lives of the Troops in the future.
Some peoples are to backward to take the helping hand of the "West" and they want to remain living in the dark ages.
As for peoples of Iraq are doing much better job of topping each other off with their car bombings, group killings
So bring the "Troops" home
boomtown
Actually I was too harsh. Maybe American troops are doing more harm than good.
But someone has to go in there and ensure stability. Problem is that the Iraqis hate everyone - Im having a hard time thinking who. Not Europeans, not the Chinese, not Pakistanis, not Iranians, not Africans - theres not alot of people left in the world that the Iraqis dont hate.....
And you can't exactly send in Saudi troops to defend a democracy.
Mr & Mrs Inquirer
What was the problem was with "Sadam" there was a lot more law and order with him and Co.