Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-14-2004, 12:03 PM   #1
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Default Stop staying the course.

It is time for a totally new approach to Iraq. The insurgency is extending beyond an insurgency. We are in danger of losing the entire country of Iraq. Both Bush and Kerry are tieing their strategies to building up the Iraqi police force. There is too much of an insurgency in Iraq working to weaken those forces. Both candidates have weak plans for fixing this.
I propose that we triple our forces on the ground and go back to where we should have gone immediately after the initial battle- we impose strict Marshall law on the entire country. We need to have troops flooding this country and anyone found on the streets needs to be shot. While this occurs, we need to bring in a government to temporarily run Iraq composed of Jordanians, Egyptians, Iraqis, and Saudis as well as us. When that occurs- which should last for about 30 days we should have some better trained police forces and should phase out of the Marshall law in a manner that would allow the Iraqis to successfully patrol what they are capable of while we fill in the rest of the holes. After we phase out of this, and only then should we allow elections to occur. There is no way that any fair election can ever be held with so much discourse in the country.
We have failed completely in Iraq. We are not seeing any forward direction other than making bold claims for our political season. This is more of a mistake than following the right course. If we continue the course we are on, we are set to make Iraq worse tomorrow than it is today.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 01:16 PM   #2
Kanjien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Miami
Posts: 509
I vote for Bumble for president...he has an answer for everything.
__________________
Kanjien Cheveyo
Knights of the Holy Storm
Kanjien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 01:24 PM   #3
kanibaal
korpse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 796
Take our troops out and send them to Korea while we nuke both Iraq and Iran.
kanibaal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 01:27 PM   #4
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
I vote for Bumble for president...he has an answer for everything.
You got any ideas yourself?
Or perhaps you are just one of those that likes to knock other's thoughts without offering anything in return? Shit or get off the pot. If you don't have anything to say- shut up- you are wasting cyberspace.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 01:30 PM   #5
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/diceclay.html
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 02:47 PM   #6
AtticaX'Layan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 458
Default Oh?

Originally Posted by bumbleroot
I propose that we triple our forces on the ground and go back to where we should have gone immediately after the initial battle- we impose strict Marshall law on the entire country. We need to have troops flooding this country and anyone found on the streets needs to be shot. While this occurs, we need to bring in a government to temporarily run Iraq composed of Jordanians, Egyptians, Iraqis, and Saudis as well as us.
Besides the shooting part which is not only unethical but inhumane, let's assume in the happy world of Bumbleroot that this idea would be used...

You know why we caught so many Baath Party and insergants? Because Iraqi's who favor the treatment from the USA handed the over.

Yeah, I am sure after we impose martial law and rob them of the little bit of normal day to day life they have that would so help our cause and not make people sympathize with insergants.

Bum, can you honestly believe the majority of Iraq is and supports insergants?

I'd bet less than 4% of the nation is on the side of the radicals. Those that are fighting are extremists who know that as soon as fair law sets down the Imams and the Religious sects can't force Islamic Law upon the locals. They fear western education and education of females.

If you don't stay the corse, it can only encourage Iraqi insergants. To withdraw would make them think it is working, to let them push us to the point we oppress Iraqis and get them to side with them is making it work to.

But I am sure since you pick and choose you points you won't answer even hald the points in my post, Bum. At least Horm and Lurik will address other posts.
__________________
Attica X'Layan
Karai Tunaria
Naarga Ktulu
Nuzzley Bardstomper
AtticaX'Layan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 02:54 PM   #7
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
Cutting and running like scared little children is always an effective way to deal with terrorism...just ask Spain..
__________________
Seriously, suck my dick Jesusfreak. Liar. -Horm
Seriously, get the fuck over yourself rimlicker -Horm
Unlike you I have integrity -Horm

Attachment 94
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 03:25 PM   #8
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by AtticaX'Layan
Besides the shooting part which is not only unethical but inhumane,
So do you support war?
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 03:35 PM   #9
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Cutting and running like scared little children is always an effective way to deal with terrorism...just ask Spain..
Just to be clear I am not advocating this.
Attica- your spelling is atrocious. Reading your posts is like replying to a 5th grader. However, I will give it a whack. Your understanding of the insurgency is far diminished from the actual truth. This is the latest figures. This was long before our crackdowns in Fallujah and before we shut down Sadr's newspaper and other actions by the US.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-29-04-2.html
it is sobering that 21 percent of Arab respondents think that such attacks are appropriate. That figure can fairly be interpreted as the hard core supporters of the insurgency. Since there are nearly 16 million Arab teenagers and adults in Iraq, that translates to some 3.3 million proponents of violent resistance to the occupation. It is additional evidence that the insurgency is not confined to "Saddam diehards," as the administration argued for so long.
3.3 million people is not a small insurgency and it is more than enough to keep our 150k soldiers busy for a long time. I would believe that our actions in the 6 months since this has happened have not allowed that to shrink.
I will also forgive you for your ignorance on this matter even though you made a conscious choice to be ignorant.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 04:20 PM   #10
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
One other thing Attica- Marshall law is an acceptable form of quelling uprisings and is an acceptable form of restoring order.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 04:33 PM   #11
Vireil
Disturbing the force
 
Vireil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 2,711
I suppose in the wild west tradition of G W Bush, Marshall law would be the aspiration, however Marshmallow law would be a more accurate description of the current policy. In any event, for the rest of the world FWIW, it's Martial law.








p.s. Sorry for the grammar police intrusion. Move along, there's nothing to see here.
__________________
Vireil
Coercer
<Recovering>
Vireil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 04:34 PM   #12
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
Damn you Vireil, now i want some marshmallows
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 04:52 PM   #13
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
You are right Vireil. I was confusing the Marshall Plan with Martial Law.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 05:08 PM   #14
AtticaX'Layan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 458
Default :p

Originally Posted by Lurikeen
So do you support war?
That is not the what I said. What I said it was unethical to shoot people who are out after any 'curfew'. Detain them, but to shoot anybody out is inhumane and extreme.
__________________
Attica X'Layan
Karai Tunaria
Naarga Ktulu
Nuzzley Bardstomper
AtticaX'Layan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 05:22 PM   #15
AtticaX'Layan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 458
Default Twit

Originally Posted by bumbleroot
Just to be clear I am not advocating this.
Attica- your spelling is atrocious. Reading your posts is like replying to a 5th grader. However, I will give it a whack.
My spelling is 'atrocious'? All I see I mispelled was insurgant. This from the same gentleman who in the same post called it Marshall Law, not Martial Law? But good attempt in being a douche bag.
Originally Posted by bumbleroot

Your understanding of the insurgency is far diminished from the actual truth. This is the latest figures. This was long before our crackdowns in Fallujah and before we shut down Sadr's newspaper and other actions by the US.

3.3 million people is not a small insurgency and it is more than enough to keep our 150k soldiers busy for a long time. I would believe that our actions in the 6 months since this has happened have not allowed that to shrink.
I will also forgive you for your ignorance on this matter even though you made a conscious choice to be ignorant.
So who made these figures and went door to door, Bum? They polled EVERYBODY in Iraq? Or did they just pull some random people from a crowd? Absolute numbers are inproper, and 3.3 million is not only a foolish estimate, but an improper one.

Furthermore, let's return to the original point of what I said.

I called martial law and shooting people out past curfew unethical.

Also the men involved in planning strategy in Iraq are trained in the best institutions in the world as well as have had training and intellegance. Who the fuck are you to say their plan is dumb? Have a GED and a community college degree?

Iraq needs to be less of a millitary solution and more of a police and political situation. Most of the soldiers dying aren't in gun battles, but bombs and acts that are not warfare, but terrorism.

On the domestic level you can't solve that with martial law, but police work and underground policing.

The enemy in Iraq is not with an Ak-47 fighting from street to street, but guys hiding in basements making car bombs.
__________________
Attica X'Layan
Karai Tunaria
Naarga Ktulu
Nuzzley Bardstomper
AtticaX'Layan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 05:23 PM   #16
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by AtticaX'Layan
That is not the what I said. What I said it was unethical to shoot people who are out after any 'curfew'. Detain them, but to shoot anybody out is inhumane and extreme.
Surely you understand that in open war a curfew doesn't protect people from being shot? Further, I don't see where the ethical failure is, if someone is knowingly out during a curfew and is shot to death. If you are out during a curfew, then you have pronounced yourself the enemy. You may as well be wearing a sign made from glowsticks... "Please shoot me now!"
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 05:38 PM   #17
AtticaX'Layan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 458
Default Instances

Originally Posted by Lurikeen
Surely you understand that in open war a curfew doesn't protect people from being shot? Further, I don't see where the ethical failure is, if someone is knowingly out during a curfew and is shot to death. If you are out during a curfew, then you have pronounced yourself the enemy. You may as well be wearing a sign made from glowsticks... "Please shoot me now!"
So being can't exit their homes to get doctors for dying family members? Leave their homes in emergancies? Curfews are set to protect from riff raff, not logic.

There are exceptions of shooting at an unknown enemy in cases like those charging check points, but to just shoot somebody out at the wrong hour is unethical.

Furthermore, show me at least on instance in history such was used and the end result was good?
__________________
Attica X'Layan
Karai Tunaria
Naarga Ktulu
Nuzzley Bardstomper
AtticaX'Layan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 06:11 PM   #18
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Jesus Christ Attica you sure are naive. The object is to win in Iraq, not perpetuate in Iraq. Martial law is acceptable if it works. Wars are not fought to be fought, they are fought to be won. Either we do it right or we keep half-assing it while us Americans pay for the fuckups of half-assing it. What Bush did; and this was his mistake, is he allowed this thing to grow because they had too few soldiers and no immediate plans right after the initial phase was complete. Their plan was for the populace to completely embrace us. That was all they had in their playbooks. That is weak. In fact that isn't a plan.

That is the point that Kerry has made all along. He said this was done wrong. It was entered into wrong, it has been handled wrong. You don't enter wars wrong and you don't enter them without a plan to win them. For us to be even talking about a war in Iraq today is ludicrous. It DOES NOT show an effective war leader. The events in Iraq that led us to where it is today did not happen on their own. Our mistakes made them happen.
I was against this war from the start. I was against it because of the way we entered it. I said it was the wrong war in the wrong way at the wrong time. We could have fought this same war, in the right way with more assistance and less culpability and thus giving ourselves an easier exit plan. But this has been done wrong every step of the way.
So that leaves the choice up to America- do we want someone leading wars that fucks them up or do we want someone that has consistently pushed for the path that later becomes evident to have been a better choice. As of right now, the only reason the right has supported Bush has been because of politics. And just so you know, you don't win wars with politics. You win them with sensible, strong decisions. There has been zero sensibility in Iraq so far.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 06:13 PM   #19
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
I said it was the wrong war in the wrong way at the wrong time.
Holy shit, i figured it out, Mumbles is Howard Dean Ted Kennedy or John Kerry?????
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)

Last edited by chukzombi; 09-14-2004 at 06:51 PM. Reason: edited becuase John Kennedy was supposed to be John Kerry
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 06:45 PM   #20
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Just so you get it through that thick rock on top of your shoulders Chuk- the right war was annihalating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was wrong to do this with so little support from the start. We did not need to be the enemy to the Iraqis or to the rest of the world. You always need your allies and you don't want to alienate them when you enter a war. As it is, we need them to get out. Being that Iraq was not an IMMINENT threat, we could have afforded to continue and intensify our searches for WMD. When we found none we would have wound up not going to war, saving 200 billion and focusing more intensely on terrorism throughout the world. As it is now, we can not do that because of fiscal, manpower and political restraints. That is a failure of leadership. I said it would happen then, it has happened and you Rockheads don't listen because you want the glory of waving flags and everything that has nothing to do with actually achieving anything.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 06:53 PM   #21
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
IF this was the 'wrong war' how come john kerry voted for it and begged for it for 10 years???
Oh no the struggle!!!

Kerry in a nutshell

Kerry 101
Deconstructing the Democratic presidential candidate.



John Kerry's defenders complain that the Massachusetts senator has always had a consistent, even if "nuanced," position on the Iraq war. All it takes, they say, is a little attention, and what he believes becomes clear. They are right. Kerry's position can be easily distilled in a few hundred words, as follows:


If Saddam Hussein invades a neighboring country, as he did in 1990, and a massive international coalition is mustered against him, as it was, the president of the United States should not be authorized to take military action. But if the president launches military action and it is successful, he's all for it.

If in 2002 Saddam continues to defy the United Nations, but in much murkier circumstances than 1991 — there's no invasion of a neighbor, for instance — the president should be authorized to take military action. If the president takes such action and topples Saddam, he's for it. But if Howard Dean gains in the Democratic primaries in early 2004, he's against it.

In that event, if the war that he authorized needs funding, he's against it. If American troops need more body armor, he criticizes President Bush for not providing it. But if funding for such armor is in the $87 billion bill to fund the war, which he authorized and once supported but no longer supports even though he authorized it, he's against it.

If — prior to readjusting fully to the Dean surge — he is asked about the $87 billion, he believes voting against it would be "irresponsible." Later — after vanquishing Dean, and as he tries to move to the center — if he is criticized for actually voting against the $87 billion, he explains that he voted for it, before voting against it. He voted for it because it would be wrong to abandon our troops, but he voted against it because it would be wrong to support the war the troops are fighting in, which he once supported, but now opposes, even though he supports the troops as long as they can fight it without new funding.

If Kerry is welcoming another Democrat who voted against the $87 billion onto his ticket, John Edwards, he is "proud" of the vote he called "irresponsible," even if he didn't cast that vote as commonly understood, since he voted for it, before he voted against it, and even if he did vote against it, it was the right thing to do because he was against the war after he was for it, which is plenty reason to be proud.

If Kerry needs criticisms to hurl at Bush, it is unacceptable that Bush didn't muster the international coalition of the first Gulf War, which he opposed (before he was for it). If there are no WMDs in Iraq, Bush misled us into war, even though Kerry himself said the same thing about WMDs, misleading the public into supporting a war that he would support only for as long as he didn't oppose it.

If pressed to say whether he would have voted to authorize the war despite not finding WMDs, he supports voting the same way, authorizing a war that he eventually opposed, even though it deserved his authorization vote and still does today, despite his opposition to it. If criticizing Bush's postwar management, he supports more troops in Iraq. If criticizing Bush's postwar management, he supports pulling troops out of Iraq in six months.

If desperate to gain post-August traction against Bush, he thinks Iraq is "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Although he would vote again to authorize the wrong war, so long as he wouldn't be committed to voting to fund it, at least not committed to voting to fund it in a circumstance where he couldn't immediately also vote against funding it to demonstrate how he opposed the wrong war he supported and would authorize again.

See? It's simple.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:43 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.