Two possible stategies

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

Since leaving Iraq isn't a viable option (unless you want the Taliban and Iran to take over the entire middle east), here's two possible strategies for Iraq.

1. Pull all coalition troops out of their current assignments and station them on the Iraqi border. If necessary, push in 10-20 miles for a buffer zone. Use the coalition to ensure that the Iraq border is so tightly secured that a gnat couldnt' fart without us knowing about it.

While we prevent any more foreign terrorists from coming in the Iraqis clean house on their own. We can still supply a small number of SF observers to assist in the planning. The Iraqis themselves do all the bloody work.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.

2. We do to Baghdad what we did in Fallujah. If it looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy - we kill it. We stop being so worried about accidently killing innocents - there are none when they're harboring terrorists.

This tears the heart out of Baghdad but we will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive. Then we move out and let the Iraqi government take control again.

Then we move on through every single terrorist stronghold one at a time until there are none left alive.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.


If you had to choose between those two options, which would it be?

I'd choose #1. This falls in with my desire to help others help themselves. We give them the guarantee that there are no more enemies coming in. But they have to kill those already inside by themselves. They'll either be wildly successful or get their arses kicked. If they get their arses kicked, the good thing is there are no more coming in. The Iraqis can get their **** back together and go back in and do the job right.

This guarantees they've earned their freedom. They've earned the right to say they did it themselves. All we did was give them the space to do it. Along with that, their army will become combat hardened. This makes them that much nastier when they join us in the fight against Iran. And maybe, just maybe, Persia can be reborn as the once great nation that it once was.

[soul killer]

Option 2 for me, kill it before it kills you.

[Module88]

Since leaving Iraq isn't a viable option (unless you want the Taliban and Iran to take over the entire middle east), here's two possible strategies for Iraq.

1. Pull all coalition troops out of their current assignments and station them on the Iraqi border. If necessary, push in 10-20 miles for a buffer zone. Use the coalition to ensure that the Iraq border is so tightly secured that a gnat couldnt' fart without us knowing about it.

While we prevent any more foreign terrorists from coming in the Iraqis clean house on their own. We can still supply a small number of SF observers to assist in the planning. The Iraqis themselves do all the bloody work.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.

Problem: Not enough troops. Hell, we can't even secure OUR borders.


2. We do to Baghdad what we did in Fallujah. If it looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy - we kill it. We stop being so worried about accidently killing innocents - there are none when they're harboring terrorists.

This tears the heart out of Baghdad but we will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive. Then we move out and let the Iraqi government take control again.

Then we move on through every single terrorist stronghold one at a time until there are none left alive.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.

Problem: Not enough troops, and it won't get rid of the terrorism.


Solution: Drop leaflets like no other advertising about an election. The ballot is simple. Do you want America to leave Iraq? Yes or no.

Majority wins. They want us out, well, we're the ones supposed to be supporting a democracy, so we get out. If the **** hits the fan, well, we tried, but they wanted to do it themselves. If they want us to stay (doubt it), then there's a longer and more detailed idea I don't feel like typing out.

Our "democracy" has changed itself. If you recall, we weren't exactly the peachy country we are now. We had slavery, few womens rights, racism, and a whole lot of problems. It took us many wars and millions of American deaths to get to where we are today. But America has since become one of the freest nations in the world (if not the freest). I wouldn't be surprised if it took a Civil War in Iraq to do the same. Sometimes it just takes a whole lof killing for people to realize how stupid it really is, especially over something like religion.

[Johnny]

Pull out everyone. Keep a few agents in high up places here and there. Important positions. Watch them very closely.

Should they even redevelop to a point where they could be a threat. Bomb the particular threat. Example a missile silo. The construction of a silo. or so on.

[DOC]

I too would go with 1, option 2 sounds a tad wrong to me and could result in alot of backlash. Also, with 1 as you said they would learn to help themselves, but there should be some safeguard if they start to lose or if the iraqi government begins to harbor the terrorists themselves.

And pulling out is and won't be for a very long time a viable option. Both Democrats and Republicans know this but will never admit. We broke the country and set something new up, therefore we are stuck until we are sure they can stand on their own. You break it, you but it. Standard rules for invading a country.

[The Future now]

Problem: Not enough troops. Hell, we can't even secure OUR borders.



It isn't that we can't just that we won't.

[superdave]

i say we take off, and nuke the entire site from orbit...it's the only way to be sure.

[jimmyboy]

Since leaving Iraq isn't a viable option (unless you want the Taliban and Iran to take over the entire middle east), here's two possible strategies for Iraq.

1. Pull all coalition troops out of their current assignments and station them on the Iraqi border. If necessary, push in 10-20 miles for a buffer zone. Use the coalition to ensure that the Iraq border is so tightly secured that a gnat couldnt' fart without us knowing about it.

While we prevent any more foreign terrorists from coming in the Iraqis clean house on their own. We can still supply a small number of SF observers to assist in the planning. The Iraqis themselves do all the bloody work.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.

2. We do to Baghdad what we did in Fallujah. If it looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy - we kill it. We stop being so worried about accidently killing innocents - there are none when they're harboring terrorists.

This tears the heart out of Baghdad but we will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive. Then we move out and let the Iraqi government take control again.

Then we move on through every single terrorist stronghold one at a time until there are none left alive.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.


If you had to choose between those two options, which would it be?

I'd choose #1. This falls in with my desire to help others help themselves. We give them the guarantee that there are no more enemies coming in. But they have to kill those already inside by themselves. They'll either be wildly successful or get their arses kicked. If they get their arses kicked, the good thing is there are no more coming in. The Iraqis can get their **** back together and go back in and do the job right.

This guarantees they've earned their freedom. They've earned the right to say they did it themselves. All we did was give them the space to do it. Along with that, their army will become combat hardened. This makes them that much nastier when they join us in the fight against Iran. And maybe, just maybe, Persia can be reborn as the once great nation that it once was.


#1 is kind of unrealistic. We can't even seal the single-front US Mexican border, and we're hoping to seal the tripple Iraqi border? This is after a pull back? Nope. We can't even seal the Syrian-Iraqi border with our troops fully deployed. It's impossible to do it when they're limited to the US zone.

#2 is inviting trouble. Baghdad is too big to seal. So terrorists can start the fight, exodus Baghdad, leaving us to kill tons of civilians inside. This is great terrorist recruiting material.

Is there an option 3?

[Dondrei]

Since leaving Iraq isn't a viable option (unless you want the Taliban and Iran to take over the entire middle east), here's two possible strategies for Iraq.

It is a viable option. Just because you made the mess doesn't mean we have to spend forever trying to clean it up. You failed again, deal with it.

I seem to recall that the same rationale above was used to say you couldn't pull out of Vietnam. Back then people had the sense to know when they were beaten (well, eventually) and when it was time to give up and stop wasting time, money and lives fighting an unwinnable war with no objectives just because they can't admit they failed.


1. Pull all coalition troops out of their current assignments and station them on the Iraqi border. If necessary, push in 10-20 miles for a buffer zone. Use the coalition to ensure that the Iraq border is so tightly secured that a gnat couldnt' fart without us knowing about it.

While we prevent any more foreign terrorists from coming in the Iraqis clean house on their own. We can still supply a small number of SF observers to assist in the planning. The Iraqis themselves do all the bloody work.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.

LOL.

I think that says it all.


2. We do to Baghdad what we did in Fallujah. If it looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy - we kill it. We stop being so worried about accidently killing innocents - there are none when they're harboring terrorists.

This tears the heart out of Baghdad but we will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive. Then we move out and let the Iraqi government take control again.

Then we move on through every single terrorist stronghold one at a time until there are none left alive.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.

Most of the terrorists are foreign, this would only accomplish one thing; turn the entire world against you and create a massive rallying cry for Osama & Friends. I'll give you this, you conservatives sure know how to play into his hand. And in return he creates enough menace that you can keep getting elected. It's almost like you're working together. Wouldn't be all that illogical either, Islamic fundamentalists and the Religious Right want the same thing, just with the word "Mohammed" in place of "Jesus".


Problem: Not enough troops. Hell, we can't even secure OUR borders.

Problem: Not enough troops, and it won't get rid of the terrorism.


Solution: Drop leaflets like no other advertising about an election. The ballot is simple. Do you want America to leave Iraq? Yes or no.

Majority wins. They want us out, well, we're the ones supposed to be supporting a democracy, so we get out. If the **** hits the fan, well, we tried, but they wanted to do it themselves. If they want us to stay (doubt it), then there's a longer and more detailed idea I don't feel like typing out.

Our "democracy" has changed itself. If you recall, we weren't exactly the peachy country we are now. We had slavery, few womens rights, racism, and a whole lot of problems. It took us many wars and millions of American deaths to get to where we are today. But America has since become one of the freest nations in the world (if not the freest). I wouldn't be surprised if it took a Civil War in Iraq to do the same. Sometimes it just takes a whole lof killing for people to realize how stupid it really is, especially over something like religion.

You're speaking sense! Who are you and what did you do with the real Mod!?


It isn't that we can't just that we won't.

Okay, you can be the one who pays double taxes to pay for it all.

[DurfBarian]

I would go with option #3, invade Iran and Syria! U-S-A! U-S-A!

[S Z]

You been listening to Rush again Smeg?


…We're trying to build a democracy; these people are going to have to learn to defend it; they can only do that by failing and dusting themselves off. The irony here that Lowry points out is that that is what the Democrats are saying, "Get out of there and let the Iraqis have this," yet they hate him. Their hate is irrational. It's not based on substance and strategy. Looking at the Woodward book, I have a strategery, folks. I think there's two things we can do in Iraq. Let me run them by you and see what you think. The first thing is that we pull back out of Baghdad, and we position along the Syrian, Jordan and Iranian borders, and we say to the Iraqis:

"We're going to stop anybody coming across these borders. No more help from Iran. No more from Syria. No more from Jordan. Nobody's getting into this country. If we have to, we'll go 20 miles inland in each of these countries to make sure nobody gets through, but this is on you. We will make sure nobody else gets in. Now, you go in there (the Iraqis) and you clear out Baghdad. You do it once and for all, and then we're out." The second strategy is, "You don't want to go for that?" We say to the Iraqis, "All right, here's what we're going to do. We're going to take everybody we got and we're going to bring 'em into Baghdad and we're going to do search-and-destroy and we're going to take out anything that looks like an insurgent and we're going to take out anything that looks like a sympathizer, a terrorist or whatever, we're going to clean this place out — and then it's up to you."

Those are two things that are… Well, they're think pieces. I'm just thinking about this. But they both center on the fact that the Iraqis are going to have to at some point take care of all this. We'll either take care of it in Baghdad for them and we'll clear the place out and leave it up to them, or we'll go back to the borders and we'll make sure nobody is getting in there, and: "You clear out who's there. We'll go to Turkey, wherever we have to go to keep people from getting in, but it's up to you guys to wipe them out." Give them those two options. In either example, it is Shock and Awe of one form or another.

Extra points for guessing how his hypothetical co-incides with Murtha's plan.

[SaroDarksbane]

You been listening to Rush again Smeg?
Haha, nice catch SZ.

[jimmyboy]

You been listening to Rush again Smeg?



Extra points for guessing how his hypothetical co-incides with Murtha's plan.

It's kind of scary that Limbaugh is giving hypos. He is severely limited sort of speak. The least he could do is consult it with the US military or any GOP think-tank before throwing out geo-political ideas.

Invade Turkey? Are we talking about the same Turkey with military traditions going back several centuries with a gigantic army who's military hardware have just been updated by the Israelis? The few Muslim-secular state that we can actually rely upon with 5 decades of membership in NATO?

Limbaugh is a public person and owes his audience a duty to do some homework before he throws out ideas. Some people may confuse his ideas with journalism and take him seriously.

[soul killer]

Look, theres a simple solution to everything.
Just chuck a couple of Nukes there, no worries.
Im sure we all want to do that and stop all of this bull**** once and for all.

[Dondrei]

Smeg's ideas are all stolen? That's un-possible!

[llad12]

Option 4: Keep coming up with stories like these (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2521134) ...


New Plan, New Hopes For Peace In Iraq

Iraqi Lawmakers Endorse Plan to Stop Killings, but Leaders Still Have to Work Out Details

... as we continue to build and occupy our permanent military bases in Iraq. When the oil runs out, we declare victory and return home.

[Amra]

When the oil runs out, we declare victory and return home.
Serious question: are we (the USA) importing more oil now from Iraq than before the invasion? Honestly, I want to know.

[llad12]

Serious question: are we (the USA) importing more oil now from Iraq than before the invasion? Honestly, I want to know.

Iraq currently produces around 1.8 million billons/day ... pre war levels were about 2.5 million bbls/day. Those durn Iraqis keep blowing up our pipelines, raising holy hell, and thwarting the best laid imperial plans of Wolfowitz/Chalabi to privitize the Iraqi petroleum fields.

In fact, Iraq has the 2nd leading proven petroleum reserves in the world. Saudia Arabia has the most.:


In 2003, the Persian Gulf countries (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) produced about 27% of the world's oil, while holding 57% (715 billion barrels) of the world's crude oil reserves. OECD gross oil imports from Persian Gulf countries averaged about 11.6 million barrels per day (bbl/d) during 2003, accounting for 46% of the OECD's total net oil imports. Besides oil, the Persian Gulf region also has huge reserves (2,462 trillion cubic feet -- Tcf) of natural gas, accounting for 45% of total proven world gas reserves.

DOE.GOV (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html)

Miilitary and economic control of this area has alway been part of our grand strategy:


the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein...."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

Do you get it now Amra? Our American Empire has encircled the globe with military bases, not just for defense during the previous Cold War, but to now insure, that our access to strategically important areas/resources will be available to us.

This was the underlying reason for the Iraq war. It was not about WMD, AQ ties, nor establishing democracy. Rather, the war was about control of their strategic petroleum reserves of the Middle East and Caspian area should other foreign nations (eg. Venezuela) embargo our nation.

The bombings of 9/11 gave us the excuse. The administration lied and duped the American into war. We invaded, slaughtered, conquered, and set up our own government with puppet leaders to do to our bidding. We are still exaggerating the actual threat of terrorists ... exaggerations made easier by torturing of prisoners and subsequent use of their "confessions". The GOP congress has gone right along with this idea with their approval of the recent torture bill. Anyone opposed to such blantant violations of the Geneva Conventions and/or unconstitutional ideas are either branded "soft on terror", " cut and run wimps", or worse. (Juan Cole} (http://www.juancole.com/)

In the end, this administration never formulated an exit plan for Iraq. Why should they? They never really planned on leaving ...



Wake up people! Is this really the kind of America that you want? Is this the kind of leadership and policies that you were brought up to believe were noble and right?

You can change this course ... you have the power.

Vote this November and let your voice be heard.

[Pitboss_2000]

How the hell does 'pulling troops out of Iraq' lead to 'Iran taking over the Middle East'? o_O

[Dondrei]

Don't ask, with every post it just gets more crazy.

[Baynson]

This was the underlying reason for the Iraq war. It was not about WMD, AQ ties, nor establishing democracy. Rather, the war was about control of their strategic petroleum reserves of the Middle East and Caspian area should other foreign nations (eg. Venezuela) embargo our nation.

Wake up people! Is this really the kind of America that you want? Is this the kind of leadership and policies that you were brought up to believe were noble and right?

You can change this course ... you have the power.

Vote this November and let your voice be heard.I will have to agree. Oil will be the reason countries do alot of things to keep the suppies rolling and not just the U.S.. It was quite obvious to me years ago that the middle east area was capable of controlling alot of the world just by the turn of a valve. The U.S. has had a presents there a long time and will remain there untill the oil runs out, or we find our own supplies (Gulf of Mexico, Alaska) to be independent. The ****s not over, over there and won't be for a while to come. Theres still some big players out there that want the black stuff as bad as we do. Yes its about oil, I'll admit, and I want it as bad as the next guy, bad enough to kill for, not really, but if you squeez my nuts to hard and threaten to cut me off and your a bad man in someones eyes, I'm liable to smite you to serve the people you hurt as well as myself and call it good. I like the last part there about the voting, I vote, for what good will it do not too.

[The Future now]

Okay, you can be the one who pays double taxes to pay for it all.

Eh, I think it might be a bit more complicated than the cost. We don't make a serious effort to keep Mexicans out for two reasons (as I see it). First, politicians on the border states want to keep the hispanic voters. Second, those same politicans are pressured by the constructions and agricultural industry to keep the source of cheap labor open.

[Drosselmeier]

Iran and the Taliban will not take over the entire middle east. Why? They can't, and they're not dumb enough to try either.

Keep speculating Smeg. It's good to get the occasional reminder about your attitude towards other human beings, their right to self determination and physical well being.

[SaroDarksbane]

Iraq currently produces around 1.8 million billons/day ... pre war levels were about 2.5 million bbls/day.
Is that really what he asked, though?

[Pitboss_2000]

No. But music was better in the '70s as well!

[Drosselmeier]

Is that really what he asked, though?

It's connected to the issue at least. If Iraq produces significantly less oil then it's not so strange that the US imports less oil from Iraq.

Implied in the question was another question: "If we invaded for oil, why didn't we get more oil?"

I've seen this posted before on this forum, and elsewhere. For some reason the fact that you aren't swimming in free oil is supposed to be proof of good intentions. This is nonsense. The reason isn't that the US had no intention of exploiting Iraq's oil, but that **** has gone to hell. If a plan fails, does that mean the plan didn't exist? Of course not.

[SaroDarksbane]

It's connected to the issue at least. If Iraq produces significantly less oil then it's not so strange that the US imports less oil from Iraq.
Not really. Consider the following scenario:

Pre-War: Iraq produces a billion barrels of oil a day. The US imports zero.
Post War: Iraq produce a million barrels of oil a day. The US imports all of them.

The fact that the number of barrels they produce went to only 1/1000 of what it had been doesn't stop us from drawing conclusions about US intentions based on how much we are importing.

Now, if we were importing 100% at both points, or somesuch, then maybe it's relevant, but either way, llad answered a tangential question without answering the main one.

[Drosselmeier]

Not really. Consider the following scenario:

Pre-War: Iraq produces a billion barrels of oil a day. The US imports zero.
Post War: Iraq produce a million barrels of oil a day. The US imports all of them.

The fact that the number of barrels they produce went to only 1/1000 of what it had been doesn't stop us from drawing conclusions about US intentions based on how much we are importing.

Now, if we were importing 100% at both points, or somesuch, then maybe it's relevant, but either way, llad answered a tangential question without answering the main one.

Sure, but that's all depending on pre-war imports and pre-/post-war production. I'm just saying it's a place to start looking when you're wondering about the lack of cheap oil in the US. It might have something to do with it.

[myleftfoot]

Since leaving Iraq isn't a viable option

So you're agreeing with all the liberals were saying before the war. I guess they had the hindsight over yourselves ... but let's brush that aside and focus on the task at hand, eh :thumbsup:

[SaroDarksbane]

I'm just saying it's a place to start looking when you're wondering about the lack of cheap oil in the US.
I'm not looking for an explanation for rising gas prices. I'd just like to know what we're doing with the oil that Iraq is producing. Telling me how much they are producing now vs. then doesn't help answer my question in any way, unless he first answers the main question.

Once the main question in answered, only then does that other stuff become relevant.

"Are you drinking less this week?"
"I bought less beer this week."

Is that really an answer to the question?

[myleftfoot]

2. We do to Baghdad what we did in Fallujah. If it looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy - we kill it. We stop being so worried about accidently killing innocents - there are none when they're harboring terrorists.

This tears the heart out of Baghdad but we will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive. Then we move out and let the Iraqi government take control again.

You believe that killing everything that "looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy" even if they are innocent "will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive". Jesus H Christ, can you think more than 1 step ahead?????

Let the people decide, isn't that what democracy is?????

[SaroDarksbane]

You believe that killing everything that "looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy" even if they are innocent "will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive". Jesus H Christ, can you think more than 1 step ahead?????
Dontcha know? If you're not prepared to butcher everything and everyone, you don't love your country properly.

Desperate times call for desperate measures! Mass murder is justified as long as it's for freedom and democracy! We have to give up our rights to protect them!

[myleftfoot]

Dontcha know? If you're not prepared to butcher everything and everyone, you don't love your country properly.

Desperate times call for desperate measures! Mass murder is justified as long as it's for freedom and democracy! We have to give up our rights to protect them!

I see ECI has left the thread. I guess he got busy with real life again ...

[Dondrei]

Eh, I think it might be a bit more complicated than the cost. We don't make a serious effort to keep Mexicans out for two reasons (as I see it). First, politicians on the border states want to keep the hispanic voters. Second, those same politicans are pressured by the constructions and agricultural industry to keep the source of cheap labor open.

So basically everybody is happy except the American workers whose job they're supposedly taking? Thank goodness you're willing to go into bat for American trade unions. :grin:

On a serious note, I'm glad I live in a country with massive oceans on all sides. Now if we could just give New Zealand a bit of a shove out into the Pacific...


Dontcha know? If you're not prepared to butcher everything and everyone, you don't love your country properly.

Desperate times call for desperate measures! Mass murder is justified as long as it's for freedom and democracy! We have to give up our rights to protect them!

Yeah, I know. And what really gets me is; are we so soft and wimpy now that we consider this desperate times? This war is nothing compared to those of the 20th century.

It seems weird to be speaking of the 20th century as if it's historical...

[llad12]

I'm not looking for an explanation for rising gas prices. I'd just like to know what we're doing with the oil that Iraq is producing. Telling me how much they are producing now vs. then doesn't help answer my question in any way, unless he first answers the main question.

Once the main question in answered, only then does that other stuff become relevant.

"Are you drinking less this week?"
"I bought less beer this week."

Is that really an answer to the question?

Numbers numbers numbers ...

Iraq

From 1991 -1995 we imported zero
1996: 1000 bbls/day
1997: 89,000 bbs/day
1998: 336,000 bbl/day
1999: 725,000 bbl/day
2000: 620,000 bbl/day
2001: 795,000 bbl/day
2002: 459,000 bbl/day
2003: 481,000 bbl/day
2004: 656,000 bbl/day
2005: 522,000 bbl,day

DOE (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0504.html)

The most recent figure of US imports has risen to 67%. (http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html)

Our imports increase every year ... our nation is addicted to petroleum. It runs our factories, our cars, our trucks, our commerce. It provides heating, plastics ... just about everything.

Now tell me that unending continuous supplies of oil aren't strategically critical to the USA. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables3_4.html)

Tell me what the first Gulf War was about?

Now tell me why we currently have US military bases all over the Middle East? Why did control over that area transcend the regime of Saddam Hussein?

If the answer isn't obvious, then you just aren't thinking ahead.





---------

For whatever it is worth: as most of you know, I am in the petroleum business.

I prospect for oil and gas. I have done so for nearly 30 years.



Have a nice day,

Llad :thumbsup:

[Talga Vasternich]

Tell me what the first Gulf War was about?

The Gulf War (1990–1991) (also called the Persian Gulf War, First Gulf War, or Operation Desert Storm) was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of approximately 20 nations[1] led by the United States and mandated by the United Nations in order to liberate Kuwait.
The war began with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, following Iraqi contentions that Kuwait was illegally slant-drilling petroleum across Iraq’s border.

The invasion was met with immediate economic sanctions by the United Nations against Iraq. Hostilities commenced in January 1991, resulting in a decisive victory for the coalition forces, which drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait with minimal coalition deaths. The main battles were aerial and ground combat within Iraq, Kuwait, and bordering areas of Saudi Arabia. The war did not expand outside the immediate Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi border region, although Iraq fired missiles on Israeli cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

[llad12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

You think we really cared about preserving that little puny monarchy? :rolleyes:

Leave out the propaganda history lines (written by the victors) and THINK

[Talga Vasternich]

So I'm supposed to not pay attention to the propaganda others link and pay attention to the propaganda you link?

[SaroDarksbane]

As much as I hate to admit it, the fact that we are establishing such large, permanent military bases in Iraq is pretty damning evidence that an exit plan does not (and was never meant to) exist.

And in the face of that realization, there are only a handful of conclusions that can be drawn about our reasons for such a long term presence in the region, the most likely of which is oil.

=(

[DurfBarian]

No. But music was better in the '70s as well!
Disco lives forever!

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

Problem: Not enough troops. Hell, we can't even secure OUR borders.
We could easily do it. We won't. Why is the day's million dollar question.



Problem: Not enough troops, and it won't get rid of the terrorism.
135,000 of the finest troops in the world isn't enough?


Solution: Drop leaflets like no other advertising about an election. The ballot is simple. Do you want America to leave Iraq? Yes or no.

Majority wins. They want us out, well, we're the ones supposed to be supporting a democracy, so we get out. If the **** hits the fan, well, we tried, but they wanted to do it themselves. If they want us to stay (doubt it), then there's a longer and more detailed idea I don't feel like typing out.
They've already had two votes. Their chosen leaders want us there.


#1 is kind of unrealistic. We can't even seal the single-front US Mexican border, and we're hoping to seal the tripple Iraqi border? This is after a pull back? Nope. We can't even seal the Syrian-Iraqi border with our troops fully deployed. It's impossible to do it when they're limited to the US zone.

#2 is inviting trouble. Baghdad is too big to seal. So terrorists can start the fight, exodus Baghdad, leaving us to kill tons of civilians inside. This is great terrorist recruiting material.

Is there an option 3?
#1 135,000 troops aided by our technology can seal a border. For the most part it's flat and open. A swarm of drones patrolling the border backed up by rapid deployment teams further backed up by gunships and artillery can take care of anything coming across the border. The trick is to do it in depth. A 20 mile deep zero-zero zone would be about right.

#2 Fallujah was a resounding success. There are now only a handful of American special forces advisors there. The Iraqi military and police control that city. We did wonders in clearing that rat nest out. It can be done in Baghdad the same way. It'd just take longer.

Option #3 is to run away and hide behind mama UN's skirts. And then do it all over again, next time with nukes. No there is no option #3.


Most of the terrorists are foreign, this would only accomplish one thing; turn the entire world against you and create a massive rallying cry for Osama & Friends. I'll give you this, you conservatives sure know how to play into his hand. And in return he creates enough menace that you can keep getting elected. It's almost like you're working together. Wouldn't be all that illogical either, Islamic fundamentalists and the Religious Right want the same thing, just with the word "Mohammed" in place of "Jesus".
Most of the world already is against us. Who else are we going to piss off? Elbonia and Carjackistan?


I would go with option #3, invade Iran and Syria! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Where do you think the next theaters are?


You been listening to Rush again Smeg?
Naturally. I'm enrolled in the Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. I'm in their graduate program with hopes to one day join the Empire (http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/) in the Department of Hegemony by Force.


How the hell does 'pulling troops out of Iraq' lead to 'Iran taking over the Middle East'? o_O
We pull out, leave a power vaccum. Iranian and Syrian forces join with Al-Qaeda and Hizbollah and Hamas and other assorted rat****s bat****s and thier ilk to force the collapse of the Iraqi government. Iranian mullahs set up the new Iraqi government. And voila! Iran and Iraq are now arsehole buddies with lots and lots of money. Oh and they now can bugger the world's oil market.

Then with their new money and manpower, they invade Kuwait again, then Saudia Arabia and Qatar and the UAE and take the entire middle east oil. Since we've already cut and run, we're not in any position to stop this. Now we're FUBAR.

Is that what you want? If so then you might as well cut your head off now because that's what's in store for you.


You believe that killing everything that "looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy" even if they are innocent "will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive". Jesus H Christ, can you think more than 1 step ahead?????
I'd rather kill a hundred today than a million tomorrow.


Let the people decide, isn't that what democracy is?????
They already did. Their leaders want us to stay. Or have you forgotten their past couple of elections?


I see ECI has left the thread. I guess he got busy with real life again ...
Yup. Had to go home, cook dinner, play with the kid, go help a fellow Mason study, etc. Anybody else notice how big of an arsehole you look like when you comment on this? I can only assume that you're so arrogant that you insist that I respond within seconds of you each and every post. I guess I should stop doing everything else and be your post *****. Isnt' that what you really want?


You think we really cared about preserving that little puny monarchy?
Nope. We did it to stop Saddam from steamrolling over Saudia Arabia, Qatar and the UAE as well. Saddam controlling such a huge portion of the proven oil reserves in 1991 wasn't something anybody wanted. Imagine if he said Screw You I'm cutting off 90% of the oil. Oops. We'd have been FUBAR. Imagine $10 a gallon oil in 1992. Desert Storm was all about oil. Now it's about stopping a greater threat. Not that the left actually gives a rat's arse. BLCD!

[llad12]

So I'm supposed to not pay attention to the propaganda others link and pay attention to the propaganda you link?

Two of my last links were from the US Department of Energy. Whatever floats your boat ... :rolleyes:


As far as my answer was concerned --> answer me this: What nation asked for our help after the invasion of Kuwait? Why did we quickly jump to its aid? Why is it so important to us?

Not enough? OK, Which country did Osama offer to aid?



Use your brain Talga ... a mind is a terrrible thing to waste.

[llad12]

Now pay attention Talga:


Nope. We did it to stop Saddam from steamrolling over Saudia Arabia, Qatar and the UAE as well. Saddam controlling such a huge portion of the proven oil reserves in 1991 wasn't something anybody wanted. Imagine if he said Screw You I'm cutting off 90% of the oil. Oops. We'd have been FUBAR. Imagine $10 a gallon oil in 1992. Desert Storm was all about oil.

Look even Smeggy got it!



Now it's about stopping a greater threat. Not that the left actually gives a rat's arse. BLCD!

Well, with the Soviet empire gone, we had to find some new "enemy" to justify keeping our vast defense expenditures, worldwide hegemony, and massive foreign military bases. What better elusive enemy to choose than some fanatical lunatic group hiding in caves?

Pax Americana everyone :rolleyes:

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

Now pay attention Talga:

Look even Smeggy got it!
Whenever llad and I agree on something to do with politics you know there's no argument left.

That said, how the $59 a barrel doing for you? Still able to buy that new yacht for Christmas?:laugh:

[Talga Vasternich]

Two of my last links were from the US Department of Energy. Whatever floats your boat ... :rolleyes:
So the DOE is not a part of the American Empire Government? I thought the government was out to rule the world. These numbers are obviously controlled to say only what the government allows the people to know.

Or is it OK to trust some of the government some of the time?

[WildBerry]

Invade Turkey? Are we talking about the same Turkey with military traditions going back several centuries with a gigantic army who's military hardware have just been updated by the Israelis? The few Muslim-secular state that we can actually rely upon with 5 decades of membership in NATO?


You mean which is (http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm)in NATO?

[jimmyboy]

You mean which is (http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm)in NATO?

Yep. Rush wants to invade a NATO nation... a 56 years ally.

[llad12]

So the DOE is not a part of the American Empire Government? I thought the government was out to rule the world. These numbers are obviously controlled to say only what the government allows the people to know.

Or is it OK to trust some of the government some of the time?

So want to mix foreign entanglements of the Executive dept., CIA, & DOD with the DOE? Fine with me ... You can go American Petroleum Institute, American Assocation of Petroleum Geologists, Dwight's-Petroleum Information or the tax rolls for all I care ... the numbers are all approximately the same.

Don't try to BS me on the petroleum business Talga ... you will lose.


Have a nice day,

Llad :thumbsup:

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

Yep. Rush wants to invade a NATO nation... a 56 years ally.
Got a link to back that up or are you now employed by the Department of Information Pulled Out of Arses?

[jimmyboy]

#1 135,000 troops aided by our technology can seal a border. For the most part it's flat and open. A swarm of drones patrolling the border backed up by rapid deployment teams further backed up by gunships and artillery can take care of anything coming across the border. The trick is to do it in depth. A 20 mile deep zero-zero zone would be about right.

#2 Fallujah was a resounding success. There are now only a handful of American special forces advisors there. The Iraqi military and police control that city. We did wonders in clearing that rat nest out. It can be done in Baghdad the same way. It'd just take longer.

Option #3 is to run away and hide behind mama UN's skirts. And then do it all over again, next time with nukes. No there is no option #3.


Look Smeg, if 135,000 troops and drones is able to seal the border, then we would have done it by now. But we haven't been able to. Hence foreign fighers are plentiful in Iraq. If a 20 miles zero zero zone is the answer, we would have done it already.

And after Fallujah, insurgence returned. The local police joined them. And insurgence ended up using the weapons and equipment we gave the Fallujah police. Today Fallujah is a mess and is the most dangerous place on earth. US troopers have more chances of getting shot there than anywhere else in Iraq. Is there a reason that Baghdad will not result in the same?

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

Got a link to back that up about Fallujah? While you're checking for that I suggest that you read through Blackfive (http://www.blackfive.net/) - only one of the most important milblogs out there.

[Dondrei]

Yep. Rush wants to invade a NATO nation... a 56 years ally.

Oh, who can keep track of which one of those damn foreign countries is an ally and which is an enemy? All those sand-African-Americans look the same anyway..


As much as I hate to admit it, the fact that we are establishing such large, permanent military bases in Iraq is pretty damning evidence that an exit plan does not (and was never meant to) exist.

Depends what you mean by "exit". I mean, America has bases everywhere.


And in the face of that realization, there are only a handful of conclusions that can be drawn about our reasons for such a long term presence in the region, the most likely of which is oil.

=(

Pretty much. You'll notice the Hawks aren't so keen on establishing democratic utopias and regional stability in Africa, for instance (and the Africans must be thanking their lucky stars for that).


135,000 of the finest troops in the world isn't enough?

Obviously not, and finest my arse.


Most of the world already is against us. Who else are we going to piss off? Elbonia and Carjackistan?

Well, bravo.

Trust me, it can get a lot worse from here. You still have half the Middle East on your side (their tyrannical leaders anyway, not the people of course). Why do you think Bush goes to such ends not to piss off the Saudis, even though they're the No. 1 supplier of jihadis, and Osama's home country?

[SaroDarksbane]

Depends what you mean by "exit". I mean, America has bases everywhere.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Iraq#U.S._permanent_facilities)

In October 2004, Iraq's interim government transferred to U.S. ownership 104 acres of land beside the Tigris River in Bagdhad for construction of a new U.S. embassy. The new facility will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water. A few details of the embassy complex are available from a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, though many of the details remain secret. Its construction is budgeted at $592 million.

Besides the embassy complex, four “super bases” are being built for permanent deployment. One would be adjacent to Bagdhad, two would be close to the southern and northern oil fields and the fourth would be in the west towards Syria.
Five "super" bases, one the size of Vatican City, two close to oil fields, a fourth near Bagdhad itself, and one near Syria.

Yeah, we're really looking to get out as soon as possible.

[The Future now]

Look Smeg, if 135,000 troops and drones is able to seal the border, then we would have done it by now. But we haven't been able to. Hence foreign fighers are plentiful in Iraq.

Our troops are busy doing things besides sealing up the borders, which, as much as I hate to agree with Smeg, is fairly feasible if the military adopts a 'shoot any varmit scurrying into Iraq' policy. The difficulty with sealing the border into Iraq lies with the fact that people are still free to travel to and from Iraq, so in order to secure the borders you'd have to be able to check EACH person to make sure they belong there.


edit: Saro, besides Vietnam, the U.S hasn't left any country where there's been a major deployment since . . . I guess WWII. We have large amounts of troops in S. Korea, Japan, Germany really all over the place. It seems strategic to have some in the middle east as well. (More strategic than Germany I'd say!)

[Dondrei]

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Iraq#U.S._permanent_facilities)

Five "super" bases, one the size of Vatican City, two close to oil fields, a fourth near Bagdhad itself, and one near Syria.

Yeah, we're really looking to get out as soon as possible.

No I agree, but I mean "exit plan" really refers to the ending of the occupation (ie, in this case American troops no longer being involved in the security of the country or in training Iraqi troops, and supposedly a dramatic reduction in deployment numbers).


It seems strategic to have some in the middle east as well. (More strategic than Germany I'd say!)

Well, someone has to keep an eye on all that beer and porn.

[DurfBarian]

Got a link to back that up or are you now employed by the Department of Information Pulled Out of Arses?
It's all right, dude, he won't be nearly as high as you on the pay scale.

[Module88]

We could easily do it. We won't. Why is the day's million dollar question.

No, we couldn't. Even if our troops came out of firebases to intercept possible targets, we'd as mentioned, have to check legal traffic as well. Not to mention the fact that a group could easily be used as a distraction. 150,000 troops is not enough to secure the entire Iraqi border.


135,000 of the finest troops in the world isn't enough?

No, it's not.



They've already had two votes. Their chosen leaders want us there.

So their "leader" wants us there. Just like Bush wants us in Iraq eh.

[jimmyboy]

Got a link to back that up about Fallujah? While you're checking for that I suggest that you read through Blackfive (http://www.blackfive.net/) - only one of the most important milblogs out there.

Common Smeg. This is nothing new. Everyone has a copy. The Marines even confirmed it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48707-2004Sep24?language=printer
http://www.rferl.org/reports/iraq-report/2004/09/34-160904.asp
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/041004/4marines_2.htm

http://www.mail-archive.com/sam11@erols.com/msg00385.html
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_choice_091404,00.html

[jimmyboy]

Our troops are busy doing things besides sealing up the borders, which, as much as I hate to agree with Smeg, is fairly feasible if the military adopts a 'shoot any varmit scurrying into Iraq' policy. The difficulty with sealing the border into Iraq lies with the fact that people are still free to travel to and from Iraq, so in order to secure the borders you'd have to be able to check EACH person to make sure they belong there.


edit: Saro, besides Vietnam, the U.S hasn't left any country where there's been a major deployment since . . . I guess WWII. We have large amounts of troops in S. Korea, Japan, Germany really all over the place. It seems strategic to have some in the middle east as well. (More strategic than Germany I'd say!)

I think this belongs to one of those situation that works in theory like "communism."

In theory... it'll work.

[Bortaz]

llad didnt answer Amra's question, because the truth doesn't fit in with his propaganda and politics.

Also: Dondrei, let me see if I got this right. Smeg created the problems in Iraq, and now YOU have to go in and clean up the mess?

I wasn't aware that the Australians were playing that grand a role in the mess over there. Of course, I'm just guessing that you're speaking of Australian soldiers, because you yourself have certainly not done anything to "clean it up".

Or, are you aligning yourself with llad and his ilk? You keep claiming you're not a leftist, so surely this isnt the case, right?

[Dondrei]

Also: Dondrei, let me see if I got this right. Smeg created the problems in Iraq, and now YOU have to go in and clean up the mess?

I wasn't aware that the Australians were playing that grand a role in the mess over there. Of course, I'm just guessing that you're speaking of Australian soldiers, because you yourself have certainly not done anything to "clean it up".

"You" being the people who decided on invading Iraq (who Smeg supports), "we" being the Coalition. As far as I know Australia is the largest contributor after Britain (could be wrong, no-one ever mentions the other members of the Coalition, not even Poland).

We initially sent about 2,000 troops and now we're down to about 950 (according to my randomly Googled news article). Not too shabby - in fact I just did a quick calculation and assuming you currently have 150,000 troops stationed there (I don't know the exact number, that figure is a little old, I think) then if you divide 950 by the population of Australia and 150,000 by the population of America you get roughly the same number.

*EDIT*

Oops, within a factor of ten... well, it's still a big commitment for us.


Or, are you aligning yourself with llad and his ilk? You keep claiming you're not a leftist, so surely this isnt the case, right?

What gave you that impression?

[vdzele]

Since leaving Iraq isn't a viable option (unless you want the Taliban and Iran to take over the entire middle east), here's two possible strategies for Iraq.

Since when did Iran want to take the entire Middle East? (Except in western narrowed media). So far I see your troops are taking over this region and so far your companies are controlling 80% of oil reserves.

What kind of strategy can be for Iraq? You just have to wait for a couple years to pump out as much oil as you can and when the pressure gets to high you establish a “democratic” government that will send you the rest (for a fair price that is).

[Pitboss_2000]

We pull out, leave a power vaccum. Iranian and Syrian forces join with Al-Qaeda and Hizbollah and Hamas and other assorted rat****s bat****s and thier ilk to force the collapse of the Iraqi government. Iranian mullahs set up the new Iraqi government. And voila! Iran and Iraq are now arsehole buddies with lots and lots of money. Oh and they now can bugger the world's oil market.
Iran and Iraq are sworn enemies. If the mullahs marched in and set up a new government, you'd have total chaos including a fukll blown civil war in the country. And I'm not talking about a handful of nutters who set up roadside bombs, but the real deal. I can't see it happening.

[Module88]

Iran and Iraq are sworn enemies. If the mullahs marched in and set up a new government, you'd have total chaos including a fukll blown civil war in the country. And I'm not talking about a handful of nutters who set up roadside bombs, but the real deal. I can't see it happening.

Uh, why are you totally ignoring the social similarities that give his opinion some credibility? Iran and Iraq WERE sworn enemies- because Saddam was a Sunni, even though Iraq has a Shiite majority. The Sunni's aren't in power anymore, and they're disenfranchised. With Iran supporting the Shiites in Iraq, and nudging them to get revenge for attacks on say, prominent Mosques, Iran could easily manipulate the situation to gain informal control of Iraq.

[Pitboss_2000]

I don't think there's a family in Iraq that hasn't lost a relative in the Iran - Iraq war(s), I still don't believe there will be a lot of support for an Iran-sponsored government. There a saying about Iranians in Iraq that goes something like 'It doesn't matter which of their bones you break, there's always s**t inside of it.'

[myleftfoot]

I'd rather kill a hundred today than a million tomorrow.


That will not get rid of terrorism. Have you any idea what terrorism stems from? Can;'t you think more than 1 step ahead?!?


Yup. Had to go home, cook dinner, play with the kid, go help a fellow Mason study, etc. Anybody else notice how big of an arsehole you look like when you comment on this? I can only assume that you're so arrogant that you insist that I respond within seconds of you each and every post. I guess I should stop doing everything else and be your post *****. Isnt' that what you really want?

ECI, here are your toys back. I'm sorry for upsetting you, run along to your mammy now. You ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?

[Dondrei]

Uh, why are you totally ignoring the social similarities that give his opinion some credibility? Iran and Iraq WERE sworn enemies- because Saddam was a Sunni, even though Iraq has a Shiite majority. The Sunni's aren't in power anymore, and they're disenfranchised. With Iran supporting the Shiites in Iraq, and nudging them to get revenge for attacks on say, prominent Mosques, Iran could easily manipulate the situation to gain informal control of Iraq.

Mod actually has a point here. A lot of people are worried about the Shiite south leaning towards Iran (including the Sunnis and Kurds).


I don't think there's a family in Iraq that hasn't lost a relative in the Iran - Iraq war(s), I still don't believe there will be a lot of support for an Iran-sponsored government.

I think people are more worried that the country will splinter along Shiite/Sunni lines. I don't think there's much chance of direct annexation (although you never know with the Middle East), but increasing involvement from Tehran adding to Iraqi instability, sectarian violence and possible dissolution is a possibility.

[Talga Vasternich]

So want to mix foreign entanglements of the Executive dept., CIA, & DOD with the DOE?
You're the one saying the American Empire Government is corrupt.
Or are you saying only certain parts are corrupt?

[SaroDarksbane]

You're the one saying the American Empire Government is corrupt.
Or are you saying only certain parts are corrupt?
No, I'm sure his contention is that every single person is rotten to the core. :rolleyes:

[Talga Vasternich]

No, I'm sure his contention is that every single person is rotten to the core. :rolleyes:
So is there some list somewhere of what agencies I can trust and which ones I can't?

[llad12]

You're the one saying the American Empire Government is corrupt.
Or are you saying only certain parts are corrupt?

Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex. The threat of a standing army to our republic was apparent to our forefathers including presidents Washington and Madison.

The executive department, by and large, runs our foreign affairs. Congress funds and approves it. They all have a stake in this empire ... whether you see it or not. We are all affected by this empire ... whether you believe it or not.

I have shown you the facts and they cannot be dismissed.

The blowbacks and costs of empire have only begun.



Have a nice day,

Llad :thumbsup:

[Talga Vasternich]

The executive department, by and large, runs our foreign affairs. Congress funds and approves it. They all have a stake in this empire ... whether you see it or not.
So the Executive and Legislative branches of the government are corrupt. Thanks for the answer.

We are all affected by this empire ... whether you believe it or not.
I believe it.
I, unlike you, happen to like the benefits that go along with it.:cloud9:

[llad12]

llad didnt answer Amra's question, because the truth doesn't fit in with his propaganda and politics.

Hi Borty! :wave:

I realize that reading comprehension (http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost.php?p=4854137&postcount=35)is not a strong suit in the elementary Texas school systems, but, since you are a Longhorn supporter, there is no need for an apology. :wink:

----------


I believe it.
I, unlike you, happen to like the benefits that go along with it.:cloud9:

... and when we start our next war in some foreign land, will you be ready to lay down your life (or your son's or daughter's life) --> not for the defense of the USA, but for the greater glory of the empire?

History shows that all empires end ... it's not a matter of if, but when.

[Talga Vasternich]

... and when we start our next war in some foreign land, will you be ready to lay down your life (or your son's or daughter's life) --> not for the defense of the USA, but for the greater glory of the empire?
When the draft is re-instituted, I'll answer that question.

History shows that all empires end ... it's not a matter of if, but when.
Yes....all empires end.
I'm guessing there's some point you're attempting to make when you say this, other than showing off your superior education.

[SaroDarksbane]

When the draft is re-instituted, I'll answer that question.
So you are willing to send other people to die, but you don't feel responsible to give a crap about them as long as you benefit personally. Wonderful.

[Talga Vasternich]

So you are willing to send other people to die, but you don't feel responsible to give a crap about them as long as you benefit personally. Wonderful.
Last I checked, the US Army is made up of volunteers. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything they didn't sign up for.

[SaroDarksbane]

Last I checked, the US Army is made up of volunteers. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything they didn't sign up for.
Therefore, it's okay to just send them off to die on a whim?

[Talga Vasternich]

Therefore, it's okay to just send them off to die on a whim?
Pardon me for answering a question with a question, but who decides if it's "on a whim" or "important"?

[Yaboosh]

I would argue that the status of our society restricts certain people's choices to a point as to where there is very little alternative to joining the army, thus acting as a form of coercion. But hey, that is just me.

[vdzele]

Yes....all empires end.
I'm guessing there's some point you're attempting to make when you say this, other than showing off your superior education.

You don't need to have superior education for this. I have learned this in my elementary school. :wink3:

[Module88]

I don't think there's a family in Iraq that hasn't lost a relative in the Iran - Iraq war(s), I still don't believe there will be a lot of support for an Iran-sponsored government. There a saying about Iranians in Iraq that goes something like 'It doesn't matter which of their bones you break, there's always s**t inside of it.'

And why were they fighting that war? Don't suppose it had anything to do with a certain Sunni in power, who sent the Shiites to die for him.

And Saro, I agree.

[Dondrei]

I would argue that the status of our society restricts certain people's choices to a point as to where there is very little alternative to joining the army, thus acting as a form of coercion. But hey, that is just me.

Apparently starving to death if you don't doesn't count as coersion since there's no-one "pulling the trigger".


So the Executive and Legislative branches of the government are corrupt. Thanks for the answer.

I could've told you that.


Pardon me for answering a question with a question, but who decides if it's "on a whim" or "important"?

People with votes to score.

[Bortaz]

I think you'd find there are very few people in the US who are "starving to death".

[Dondrei]

I think you'd find there are very few people in the US who are "starving to death".

Thank you dole + minimum wage.

[S Z]

I think you'd find there are very few people in the US who are "starving to death".

Because you have a large volunteer army... :wink3: