# Holk's Hi-Jack, split from Re: National Strategy for Victory in Iraq



## Holk (26 Dec 2005)

I've heard that the Bush gang are planning to remove their troops from inside Iraq and move their troops to the borders to stop the inflow of weapons and insurgents from coming acrosss into Iraq.

Doesn't that sound a lot like what the US did in Vietnam with Cambodia,in trying to stop the flow of weapons down the Ho Chi Minh trail?
Look how well that worked out.

They've got to grow a pair down there in the US Congress and impeach Bush and Cheney,make a declaration that all oil in Iraq belongs to Iraqi's and not US oil companies and then bring in other countries including ours under a UN resolution to bring stability to Iraq,then Iraqi's will stand a good chance of not slipping into a civil war,that'll cost them possibly 100's of thousands of lives.
We can then bring the insurgency to a halt,and most importantly to us in the West,destroy Al Qaeda's group in Iraq(BTW they haven't been this well trained since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan),by not allowing them a just motivation to be there.

I agree that Saddam needed to be removed from power,the motivation that Bush and Cheney had to remove Saddam was criminal and unjust,and 
they should be taken to the war crimes tribunal.

Iraqi's are not better off because of Bush and Cheney's conquest.

It should have been done at a later time with the UN's support after going after countries like Saudi Arabia,Iran and Libya that give a lot of direct and indirect support to Al Qaeda


----------



## Holk (26 Dec 2005)

The only reason Al Qaeda is in Iraq and are somewhat tolerated by the locals is because Iraqi's want the US to leave them alone.
Remove the troops,and actually allow Iraqi's to control how their oil is controlled,and Al Qaeda's growth in Iraq will dwindle and they will eventually be removed by the locals and the government.

 Al Qaeda's history is that after the Afghan war in the 80's they went back to their home countries,and when they came back they started to kill politicans and civillians that they considered to be "corrupted" by the West,and everyone got sick of their crap,as will most Iraqi's will if Al Qaeda tries to stay and force their beliefs on everyone,they either imprisoned them, kicked them out,or killed them,and the rest slinked away into the population waiting for such a situation that Bush and Cheney have provided.

A just war.Just like the case was with the Soviet's invading Afghanistan.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> The only reason Al Qaeda is in Iraq and are somewhat tolerated by the locals is because Iraqi's want the US to leave them alone.
> Remove the troops,and actually allow Iraqi's to control how their oil is controlled,and Al Qaeda's growth in Iraq will dwindle and they will eventually be removed by the locals and the government.
> 
> Al Qaeda's history is that after the Afghan war in the 80's they went back to their home countries,and when they came back they started to kill politicans and civillians that they considered to be "corrupted" by the West,and everyone got sick of their crap,as will most Iraqi's will if Al Qaeda tries to stay and force their beliefs on everyone,they either imprisoned them, kicked them out,or killed them,and the rest slinked away into the population waiting for such a situation that Bush and Cheney have provided.
> ...



You need to read up on Al Qa'ida, its motives, and its history because not much of what you are saying jives with it.


----------



## Holk (26 Dec 2005)

Then provide some more education about them then,or the way you see them as.

 Because most of the information I've got about Al Qaeda is from a four-part series by a BBC documentry called "The power of nightmares" which the doc is actually about how the neo-cons in the US have been lying and manipulating information to everyone about how dangerous regimes and groups around the world are,so that people will see them as the only group that can control government to protect them.
 In the doc they got into how Al Qaeda was created and how they've progressed after the Afghan war,fighting their governments and trying to control the population,and since none of their tactics worked they've been since the mid 90's bombing foreign targets (I.E. African embassy bombings) to motivate the Muslim population worldwide to accept that they are the only ones to protect them.

That's what 9/11 was about,killing as many Americans as possible in a symbol of a US institution that they perceived that was a Muslims source of "corruption".

 Like I said if you have a link that gives more insight into Al Qaeda then please let me know.


"The Power of Nightmares"

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


----------



## Infanteer (26 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> Like I said if you have a link that gives more insight into Al Qaeda then please let me know.



Well, you're in trouble if your only source for Al Qa'ida is one that actually targets the US neo-conservative establishment.  There is alot of stuff out there; follow this linked discussion for a better idea on what to look at:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Do you honestly think that the average communist insurgent knew the finer points of Marx and Engels?



Don't get focussed on Al Qa'ida though - it is only a part of the problem facing Iraq.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> The only reason Al Qaeda is in Iraq and are somewhat tolerated by the locals is because Iraqi's want the US to leave them alone.
> Remove the troops,and actually allow Iraqi's to control how their oil is controlled,and Al Qaeda's growth in Iraq will dwindle and they will eventually be removed by the locals and the government.



 ???



			
				Holk said:
			
		

> Because most of the information I've got about Al Qaeda is from a four-part series by a BBC documentry called "The power of nightmares" which the doc is actually about how the neo-cons in the US have been lying and manipulating information to everyone about how dangerous regimes and groups around the world are,so that people will see them as the only group that can control government to protect them.



 :rofl:

That explains it.  What we have here is a graduate of the Michael Moore School of Global Politics.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> That explains it.  What we have here is a graduate of the Michael Moore School of Global Politics.





And what a distinguished school that is:


----------



## Holk (27 Dec 2005)

Ya,how terrible of him it is to suggest that America should go after the sources of terrorism in Middle East and not that he's become one of the many dumbass Bush asskissers,who can't figure out that they're getting screwed over by Bush and Cheney :.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2005)

Yeah, imagine that....


----------



## Holk (27 Dec 2005)

I read some of those posts,and I don"t see how what I've been saying is so inaccurate,I know that Bin Laden wants to build a Muslim empire based on fundelmetalist Islamic principles.

 The fact that the authors of "The power of nightmares" target the US neo-con agenda,doesn't mean what they report on Al Qaeda is somehow innacurate,you might think they'd show Al Qaeda in a more favourful light,but they don't.

 All else I can say is pay attention to the CBC and watch it next time they announce that they'll show it.
Then let me know what's wrong with the argument.

 Or better yet let me know right now what's wrong with what I'm posting.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> I read some of those posts,and I don"t see how what I've been saying is so inaccurate,I know that Bin Laden wants to build a Muslim empire based on fundelmetalist Islamic principles.
> 
> The fact that the authors of "The power of nightmares" target the US neo-con agenda,doesn't mean what they report on Al Qaeda is somehow innacurate,you might think they'd show Al Qaeda in a more favourful light,but they don't.
> 
> ...



How do I put this politely....

There are some comments/positions which are so....out of 'er....that you'll be hard pressed to find anyone on here who's interested in debating them.  Occasionaly an individual will swing by these forums who seems to beleive that the "neocons" are responsible for everything from the 9/11 attacks, to faking the moon landing, to oppressing Gallileo and starting the Crusades.  Your comments so far fall into the same general category.  If such "discussion" are your only reason for being here, you've come to the wrong site.


----------



## Holk (27 Dec 2005)

First of all my last post wasn't meant for you and second... 
 Why? Is this where Canadian soldiers who are American suckups and wannabes hang out or something?
So discusion outside of a warmongers mindset can't be challenged here?
We'll see about that.

 Here's the real reason behind Bush and Cheney's invasion of Iraq.

http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> Or better yet let me know right now what's wrong with what I'm posting.



To imply that the only thing keeping Al Qa'ida strong in Iraq is the American presence is foolish.  Much of the hardcore element of the Sunni minority sees the Shi'ites as a legitimate enemy (a tenet a Salafist thought) and sees a democratic government as a Shi'ite apostate government propped up by America.

Have you been watching the news?  For every attack on American soldier there are 3 attacks on other Iraqis.



			
				Holk said:
			
		

> Why? Is this where Canadian soldiers who are American suckups and wannabes hang out or something?
> So discusion outside of a warmongers mindset can't be challenged here?
> We'll see about that.



No, but this is a board where parroting the usual mindless anti-US rhetoric is frowned upon.  You're welcome to make the argument - find the member Britney Spears; that guy will give you an _epee_ to play with.

If you insist on tarring us as suckups and wannabe and deriding our US brothers and allies - many who post on this site - then you are going to find the door right quick.  We've seen this tumbleweed blow through before and it doesn't usually last long.


----------



## TCBF (27 Dec 2005)

"Lemme guess, you also think that the CIA assassinated Kennedy too?"

- I'm, myself, partial to the Secret Service guy with the AR-15 resting on the windshield of the convertible chase car having an ND. 

Exit strategy:  Fact is, you DON'T go home when you win.  The USA still has troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.  Sure, the troops are brought back who fought the war, but the next generation gets to garrison the place.  

Tom


----------



## George Wallace (27 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> Then provide some more education about them then,or the way you see them as.
> ................... Like I said if you have a link that gives more insight into Al Qaeda then please let me know.


I don't know how you research, but here are just a few links to info on an Al Qaeda sponsored cell in Indonesia, the Jemaah Islamiyah:

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=7&id=359700
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179758,00.html
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-12-25-voa5.cfm
http://news.inq7.net/nation/index.php?index=1&story_id=61122
http://news.inq7.net/nation/index.php?index=1&story_id=61121
http://news.inq7.net/nation/index.php?index=1&story_id=61121
http://english.people.com.cn/200512/25/eng20051225_230695.html
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/24/indonesia-security051224.html
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=81749
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=69525
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3544511.html
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20051223-120048-3306r.htm
http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/051223/15/3xh0p.html
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17652433%5E954,00.html
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/other_news/&articleid=259873
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1343429.cms
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=166580700&p=y6658y4x6
http://news.inq7.net/regions/index.php?index=1&story_id=60637
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.241636336&par=0
http://news.inq7.net/breaking/index.php?index=2&story_id=60567
http://news.balita.ph/html/article.php/20051220183632579

These are only links for the period 20 -26 Dec 2005.  Seven days!  One Week!


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - I'm, myself, partial to the Secret Service guy with the AR-15 resting on the windshield of the convertible chase car having an ND.



Naw, if that were the case you would have been able to hear him yell "contact!".


----------



## Holk (27 Dec 2005)

Infanteer,

 So that's Bush and Cheney's excuse now? They say that they have to occupy Iraq,which didn't have to be occupied in the first place,because the Sunni's will allow Al Qaeda to stay?
I still can't see the Sunni's supporting Al Qaeda as hosts when all the fighting is over as being very realistic,considering that the US would probably bomb them around the clock if they did such a foolish thing.

I still say pulling out will do more good than staying,the Sunni's won't survive when they have their own country,if they'd continue to host Al Qaeda past fighting the Shi'ites.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> I still say pulling out will do more good than staying,



Sure.  Anything else?


----------



## George Wallace (27 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> I still say pulling out will do more good than staying,.......


Where would Germany, Europe as a whole and Japan be today, had the Allies packed up and left after the end of the War?  It took over fifty years to return Europe and Japan to any form of normality after WW II.  How do you expect the same to happen in Iraq or Afghanistan overnight?  Do you have a "Magic Wand" or something?


----------



## Holk (27 Dec 2005)

Iraqi's are not unless you can provide some other evidence that that do,do not want the US in their country,they know why the US invaded their country and they will not accept them,even getting rid of Saddam isn't enough.
 Besides Iraq isn't a threat to anyone,if they do become dangerous,the US with a credible coalition can then go back in and fight them.
 The US has no moral ground at all.
 This was/is all about increasing the US empire,not something Just,like it is in the case with Afghanistan or Japan and Germany.

 If the same situation happened to us as what has happened to Iraq we wouldn't put up with what the US is doing now either.

 Imagine the uproar there would have been if the French stayed in America and dictated how Americans should live after they helped them to defeat the British.


And for the record I'm not a university student that's upset that the whole world hasn't accepted Marxist Leninism.
I just see the US for what they really stand for,and that's for corporations.

I like that Canada is free-market country and will/would fight to keep us that way.

Also I don't hate soldiers,some I can't stand,but those are mostly few and far between.
After all I was a cadet for 5 years,being sort of in the military were the best times in my life.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> Iraqi's are not unless you can provide some other evidence that that do,do not want the US in their country,they know why the US invaded their country and they will not accept them,even getting rid of Saddam isn't enough.
> Besides Iraq isn't a threat to anyone,if they do become dangerous,the US with a credible coalition can then go back in and fight them.
> The US has no moral ground at all.
> This was/is all about increasing the US empire,not something Just,like it is in the case with Afghanistan or Japan and Germany.
> ...


What kind of bull hockey is this?


No thought of the French and Russian Oil interests in Iraq?  Petro Fina?  German chemical companies.  Not too many American outfits with interests in that country.....when you start to look at them......so I really don't see your warped point of view.   Actually.......;you are posting quite like a child would..................................More Research!


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> This was/is all about increasing the US empire,not something Just,like it is in the case with Afghanistan or Japan and Germany.



Man, didn't you hear?  The US "neocons" ALLOWED pearl harbour to happen so they'd have an excuse to join the war!  Yeah, there's some connection with minisubs and stuff, you should read up on it. It was all about expanding their empire into Europe.  That's why they still have bases in Germany!

Or wait, no, it was about oppressing the workers by fighting communism!  They wanted us all to be slavesto the corporofaschist capitalism machine!  The USSR could have ussered in a new peacefullage of equality and hugs and flowers, but those evil neocons made it fail by getting the CIA to sell Cocaine to Cuba. Or something like that.  It was right about the time they faked the moon landing to make communists look bad.

And EVERY major conflict they go into is just about resources!  Vietnam was about...well, ok, dunno about that one, we were too stoned in between protests to figure it out.  But Kosovo was about mineral rights!  Afghanistan was about building a pipeline!  And ofcourse, Iraq's all about oil.  Everyone knows it.  If Michael Moore says it, it's GOT to be true!



			
				Holk said:
			
		

> Imagine the uproar there would have been if the French stayed in America and dictated how Americans should live after they helped them to defeat the British.



Oh you mean the way we're doing in Bosnia?  And Afghanistan?

Has someone been slipping halucinogenic chemicals into your pot?


----------



## Holk (28 Dec 2005)

You're too goddamn stupid and unaware to understand what's going on around you you dumbf$!&.
I could expain it to you,but I can't comprehend it for you.

I do understand your retoric though...

USA Good!!! Everyone else BAAAAAD!
USA Good!!! Everyone else BAAAAAD!

Me thinks I'm a big tough American,I'm better than all you Canadians,Me so STROOOONG.


----------



## TCBF (28 Dec 2005)

"Imagine the uproar there would have been if the French stayed in America and dictated how Americans should live after they helped them to defeat the British.'

- None.  I mean, they stayed in Canada and are dictating to Canadians,right?

Tom


----------



## Holk (28 Dec 2005)

LOL!

And then maybe french fries would have been named "Freedom fries" sooner.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> You're too goddamn stupid and unaware to understand what's going on around you you dumbf$!&.
> I could expain it to you,but I can't comprehend it for you.
> 
> I do understand your retoric though...
> ...


As opposed to what?

We do comprehend what is going on around us and can't figure out where the heck you have been hiding so deep in the woods, protecting trees or something, that you have no clue of what is really going on in the world?

We also understand your Leftist rhetoric:

USA is Bad!!! USA is Imperialistic War Mongering Empire Building Capitalistic State out for World Domination!!!!!!
USA is Bad!!! USA is Imperialistic War Mongering Empire Building Capitalistic State out for World Domination!!!!!!

We think you are Anti-American Dope Smoking Tree Hugger Anarchist from the Back Woods, Soooo High you live in a Fantasy Land.  We'll call it La La Land.

Actually, we think you are a fifteen year old trolling this forum.  We don't take kindly to Trolls.  Their bridges are soon blown and they soon have no place to hide.  

So we will lay down some covering fire now and allow the Cbt Engrs to do their 'thang'.   ;D


----------



## meni0n (28 Dec 2005)

Holk, so when was the last time you did something good in the world instead of whining about some conspiracy?


----------



## Holk (28 Dec 2005)

Whatever,I've been on other forums and the "I'd die for America" crowd,well you guys just can't be reasoned with. :brickwall:

I give up.

Good old Dubya, Went into Iraq there see,and saved us all from that damn dangerous Saddam Hussein who wanted to poison us with all his WMD's that he was giving to Al Qaeda and all the other terrorist groups in the world see,and now we don't talk about finding no WMD's or links to Al Qaeda because now the case is we saved a people from it's tyrant and the US hasn't killed more Iraqi's than Saddam killed annually,NO,NO,NO,Say it we're fighting for FREEDOM!!

Oil? hmmm... yes there's oil,but what are you accusing us of you Liberal,Al Qaeda freedom hating cowards?
Just say this again..FREEDOM!!


There Am I SANE now?


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (28 Dec 2005)

Holk, before I respond to your granola munching post-academic rants, I would ask that you fill out your profile to enlighten us as to who we are dealing with.  If not, please remove the Red Ensign from your Avatar, because that is a symbol of a nation you have no clue about.


----------



## Holk (28 Dec 2005)

I already explained myself earlier look it up.

I'm Canadian,you prove that you are.

And I'm sick of this BS about me being some hippie(not that I have much against them) I shave my beard and I read lots of books about war.So F off!


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (28 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> I shave my beard and I read lots of books about war.So F off!



Good for you.  Notice I have never resorted to profanity or attacks regarding your personal appearance.  And I sifted through your 13 posts, and cannot find anything that resembles an explanation.

I have also read many books about war, and have been to war, and ponder endlessly about war.

What exactly are you trying to say, and how do you intend to back up your claims?


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2005)

> from: Holk on Today at 01:05:13]
> Good old Dubya, Went into Iraq there see,and saved us all from that damn dangerous Saddam Hussein who wanted to poison us with all his WMD's that he was giving to Al Qaeda and all the other terrorist groups in the world see,and now we don't talk about finding no WMD's or links to Al Qaeda because now the case is we saved a people from it's tyrant and the US hasn't killed more Iraqi's than Saddam killed annually,NO,NO,NO,Say it we're fighting for FREEDOM!!



WMD was only one of the many and varied arguments for going to war against Iraq, *and of course that neo-con giant, Bill Clinton, made speeches warning us all of the danger of Saddam Husseain's WMD program as far back as 1998.* However, if we just confine ourselves to the arguments about WMD, it is an indisputable fact that the Iraqis used WMD (in the form of chemical weapons) against the Iranians and their own Kurdish population, openly threatened their use in both the Perian Gulf war and OIF, and in the period between 1991 and 2003, spent vast sums of money and effort engaging in activities that looked like WMD programs to the intelligence agencies of Germany, France the UK and the United States (I won't presume to speak for the Intelligence organs of nations that don't share their data with us). Based on that evidence, there was lots of reasons to believe there was an active WMD program with stockpiles of chemical weapons.

Since the United States and the coalition had trounced Iraq in 1991 and was in a position (with an economic embargo and enforced "no fly" zones) to prevent Saddam Hussein from using conventional means to deploy such weapons, it was also quite reasonabel to assume the Iraqis would look to other means. Iraq was also known as a large and open sponsor of terrorist organizations, and there were known contacts between the Iraqis and Al Qaeda, although the extent of their collaberation is still in dispute. No doubt as more documents get translated and other intelligence sources are analysed, things will come into sharper focus. Combine these two facts, and you would have to find very compelling counter evidence to say there was NOT a clear and present danger *based on what was known between 2001 and the start of OIF.*

The other many and varied provocations the Iraqis offered which either individually or collectively could be taken as a pretext for war I will leave you to reserch, Mr Holk, since you are currently fighting a battle of wits completely unarmed.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> So F off!



All right, cool it Maverick.  I told you to watch your caustic posting a while back and you ignored it, so now you get an introduction to the warning track.

As to your claim of pulling out; should we also pull out of Afghanistan as well, since that is nothing but a US oil grab too (big money in Central Asian gas)?  Since you've read so many warbooks, tell me what happened in Saigon in 1975. 

America is about Corporations and Canada is the True North Strong and Free?  Man, I need some of whatever you are smoking.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Lemme guess, you also think that the CIA assassinated Kennedy too?"
> 
> - I'm, myself, partial to the Secret Service guy with the AR-15 resting on the windshield of the convertible chase car having an ND.
> 
> Tom



They had a whole book about that, didn't they?  I think Gerald Posner's book CASE CLOSED is still the best, but I've read a lot of the whackier conspiracy books - Lifton's for example, and Garrison's ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS.  The ND book I never got to read.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> All right, cool it Maverick.  I told you to watch your caustic posting a while back and you ignored it, so now you get an introduction to the warning track.
> 
> As to your claim of pulling out; should we also pull out of Afghanistan as well, since that is nothing but a US oil grab too (big money in Central Asian gas)?  Since you've read so many warbooks, tell me what happened in Saigon in 1975.
> 
> America is about Corporations and Canada is the True North Strong and Free?  Man, I need some of whatever you are smoking.



Infanteer, don't you get tired of this old game of baiting newcomers into getting warned?  Go back and read the first page of this thread again.  You didn't offer a single substantive point, and neither did 48th Highlander; all you did was give a bunch of attitude and sarcastic comments, and implied the original poster didn't know what he was talking about.  I'm serious, go back and re-read it.  And then you act all surprised when the guy gets pissed.   :

So why not step down from your high horse from a second and respond to some of the points he made - if the US is so concerned about the welfare of the Iraqis, why not pull out and let a multi-national force with a UN mandate take over?  I have a pretty good idea why that can't be done, but that's one of the things you never bothered to address.

Maybe addressing the points raised instead of reacting to what type of person you think is posting would reduce your burden as a moderator; you really create your own problems with that _besserwisserei_ attitude.  A little more actual conversation and a little less ad hominem goes a long way; and don't pretend "he started it", you've become a master at pushing people into a corner.

If you really feel you're so much more informed and enlightened than him, why not reveal it by posting what you know, instead of the "nyah nyay I know something you don't" posts?  ???


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Infanteer, don't you get tired of this old game of baiting newcomers into getting warned?



That's why we miss you so much as moderator around here - you have everything down pat and yet even when you were a mod, you rarely decided to use your talent for anything except criticising the rest of us trying to do some work around here; something that hasn't changed with your new role as public defender I see....

If you would have bothered to read the thread instead of just coming here to take a shot at me (as per the course) you would have noticed that I gave a reply that was probably at a proportionate level to what he has supplied:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> To imply that the only thing keeping Al Qa'ida strong in Iraq is the American presence is foolish.  Much of the hardcore element of the Sunni minority sees the Shi'ites as a legitimate enemy (a tenet a Salafist thought) and sees a democratic government as a Shi'ite apostate government propped up by America.
> 
> Have you been watching the news?  For every attack on American soldier there are 3 attacks on other Iraqis.



Reading into this will clearly underline my rebuttal.  If he wanted "Infanteer's detailed synopsis of Iraq", he could have searched for the last 2,564,635 debates on the US in Iraq - most of which I've stated my case in no small detail.  Instead, we get 13 posts of anti-Bush crap and pretty caustic responses (starting with the "American suckups and wannabes" remark).  I was serious in my "cool the jets" statement; an empty profile and 13 posts that just play the tired old line of "Bush lied" really doesn't indicate a desire to be a contributing member here.


----------



## Holk (28 Dec 2005)

When the hell did I ever say anything about pulling out of Afghanistan?

I'm waiting.

A_Majoor,
Bush and Cheney are oil men and have used the attacks as an excuse to get oil for US oil companies.

Watch this documentry about Cheney

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/video_player.html?Cheney

He had people fired from the Pentagon who knew there was no evidence of Saddam being a threat.


----------



## Holk (28 Dec 2005)

Infanteer,
I agree with the US and NATO's presence in Afghanistan,even though Bush and Cheney were more concerned about bringing in an ex-UNOCAL executive to run the country and get their pipeline to run through the country than doing everything possible to capture Bin Laden(Damn that commie liberal Micheal Moore for finding that out!)
I guess they needed Bin Laden loose to keep Americans still scared to make their case against Saddam.

Afghanistan can't be allowed to be run by the Taliban again,or it could again be used as a training and operating facilty for Al Qaeda once again.


----------



## Roy Harding (28 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> When the hell did I ever say anything about pulling out of Afghanistan?
> 
> I'm waiting.
> 
> ...



Holk,

I've re-read this whole thread - I didn't see anyone accusing you of advocating pulling out of Afghanistan.  I did see someone (I believe it was Infanteer) asking a _rhetorical_ question in that regard.

I don't say a lot on these forums, I try to confine myself to answering technical questions which are within my bounds.  But I gotta say it, You, my son (or daughter) are WAY outside your lane.

Please fill in your profile - try to be as truthful as you can.  I don't believe in anonymous BS, ANYWHERE - if you believe in what you say, then say it and stand behind it.  My history is there in my profile - it ain't much - but I suspect I've spent a _whack_ more time in uniform and deployed than you've been out of diapers.

Try bringing the level of rhetoric down a bit - the majority of members here are thoughtful, intelligent, and _experienced_ people who will be glad to engage in intelligent debate with you, and are often fun and witty, to boot!

You won't listen, but I had to say it anyway.


----------



## Holk (28 Dec 2005)

Ya right,most here it would appear don't want the facts,only to find excuses to validate for war no matter what the reason.

Sun Tzu said it best,the best soldiers are the ones who are non-violent.

I'll be an asshole all I want here,thank you very much.

No I never served in the forces for medical reasons,I did want to join PPCLI then the Airborne Regiment.
The only military service if you call it that was 5 years in the Air Cadets,I finished as a Sgt.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Dec 2005)

excuse me mate,

I would appreciate that you would look at your self and comments, with your insults, you are trying to goad us into a "war".

You want to be mouthy here, then expect some of us to respond.  Want to take jabs get ready for the same in return.  Some of us have done more than 5 years in cadets, and have had to be put on a  medical after the sacrifices we have given, and then be denied our service.  We come here to feel the comraderie, not the insults from the likes of you.

Don't like it, then sling your ruck.

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2005)

Holk said:
			
		

> I'll be an asshole all I want here,thank you very much.



No, I'm afraid you won't sunshine. 

You don't get to decide how you act in Mr Bobbitt's house. The others may enjoy sparring with you, but I'm staying out and impartial while I watch. You will not do whatever you want here, that is not your prerogative. Try it and you'll be gone. Read the guidelines. I could've shut you down earlier, but didn't. This is your only warning. Be very careful how you choose your words.


----------



## Holk (28 Dec 2005)

I came here to discuss about the Iraq situation and got insulted.

What the FUCK am I suppose to do?
Just be polite and smile?
And agree with the rest of the nonthinking herd?

Likes of me?
Go take a fucking long walk off a short pier.

It's an open site I can post here all I like,or are you all going to be like the pussies at "Free Dominion"and not allow me to express an different opinion.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Dec 2005)

ladies and Gentlemen,

the meltdown commences....

 :tsktsk:

dileas

tess


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Dec 2005)

Thats enough,....goodbye.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2005)

Damn... beat me to it  Nice misdirection Bruce. Get me answering you in another thread while you sneak back here and steal my thunder. Well, I'll get you and your little dog too. EEEEEHHHEEEEEEHHEEEE


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Dec 2005)

cripes,

I wanted that to be my first one...


dileas

tess


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2005)

Well, that certainly was an _exeunt_ with a flourish.  Anyways, I wanted to comment on something that was thrown out before the meltdown that underscores the lack of logic in the argument to pull out of Iraq right away.  I know there will be no response, but others can hear it out if they would like.



			
				Holk said:
			
		

> Afghanistan can't be allowed to be run by the Taliban again,or it could again be used as a training and operating facilty for Al Qaeda once again.



So, we need to stay in Afghanistan to prevent a radical regime from taking over and providing a breeding ground for Al Qa'ida?  Has it never occured to you that leaving Iraq would lead to the same?  The pullout of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan was only the beginning of the problems there and I have no doubt that a vacuum in Iraq would be the same.  Look at the Insurgency and how it metasticized in April of 2004 - if there wasn't 150,000 US and Coalition soldiers (mostly US and Brits, the others clammed up when things went south) on the ground at that time, things would have went sour quick.  Look at the anatomy of Fallujah and imagine that happening in other Iraqi cities; Fallujah replete with foreign fighters, bomb factories, beheadings and torture of other Iraqis who supported the new developing state.  The call for a radical uprising was flowing its way to Baghdad when the US intervened in Al Anbar province in mid-2004.  Without US support, I remain confident that a conflagration similar to the uprising in 2004 would lead to chaos, civil war, and the conditions which would grant Al Qa'ida and other Salafist organizations a new safe haven.

Instability could be the worst thing to happen in Iraq, as it will reduce our influence and increase that of groups like Al Qa'ida (who are closer in Iraq to their spiritual homes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia).  Instability is something we need a strong Western presence to prevent (although a strategy to do so remains unclear) as forces of history in the region are working to promote an undesirable series of events (as I mentioned here).  Some other professionals are discussing this here right now; it shows how fragile the Iraqi State is right now and what would most likely go down if the US left.

To imply that this conflict is simply based upon rage at the US is wrong, IMHO.  If it is, then how do explain things like this?
- Top UN envoy killed in Baghdad blast
- Bombs hit pilgrim route in Iraq 
- Iraq attacks kill seven policemen 
- 'Al-Qaeda' claims Jordan attacks

This is just a taste of what was dug up on BBC, but you can see that your obvious anti-American slant is leading you to ignore evidence that points to much of the intercine violence in the region is more then just "freedom fighting Iraqis against the American occupier".  American presence plays a large part in generating unrest in the region but that presence will, I believe, also play a decisive part in eliminating the threats to us that emmanate from the area.  To imply that the US should pull out of Iraq and leave the above problems to a brand new pluralist government is simply foolish.

Too bad you decided to eat your shoe instead of figuring out how to play nice on these forums as I would have been interested in seeing you wish away these other problems with your single-minded (and misplaced) anti-Americanism.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Dec 2005)

Piper said:
			
		

> The US was not openly hated and threatened by sovereign nations in the Middle East before Iraq (I say openly for a reason).



Uhh...were did you ever get that idea???  Look up embassy attacks.  Not just the famous one in Iran, but look at Pakistan and Lebanon as well.  Khobar Towers?  The Marines in Beirut?  A big hate-on for the US has been going (and growing) since Khomeini took the stage (or, going further back, since Israel started kicking butt).


----------



## a_majoor (30 Dec 2005)

There are a lot of factors at work here, but I will stick with the foreign support theory.

Iran wants to become a regional hegemon, export their version of the Islamic Revolution and use control of the region's oil to put a strangle hold on the economies of the West using nuclear weapons to secure their position.

The Ba'athists (Syria and former Iraq) were looking for a more modest secular dictatorship, but also have designs on the greater region, securing resources and oil wealth (a la Lebanon and Kuwait) to put a strangle hold on the economies of the West using nuclear weapons to secure their position.

Saudi Arabia is the home of the Salafist movement, and the House of Saud has used its vast oil wealth to buy off the Salafists, allowing them to spread throughout the world. The Salafists also want to establish a regional hegemony, control the oil etc.

The three regimes are united in two things; that Western civilization offers powerful attractions and expectations to their populations which they cannot match or meet (causing social unrest which threatens their hold on the nation and perhaps region), and; the United States alone of all nations can prevent them from reaching their goals. This explains the flow of arms and Jihadis into Iraq, they MUST crush any liberal democracy and market economy in their midst (see Israel), and they must attempt to break the will of the American people and get the American forces out of the Middle East, opening the way for their designs. (The fact this will lead to a regional war is unimportant to them, I am sure each faction believes they have the jump on the others, and will be able to make their move before the others can consolodate their positions).

Exporting democracy and market economies, and supporting local movements like the Cedar revolution in Lebanon are the long term strategies to secure the victory gained in OIF.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Dec 2005)

Piper said:
			
		

> What I meant was the GOVERNMENTS starting to become much more open and vocal in their anti-Americanism (i.e. Iran, they did express their 'feelings' before, but I seem to be noticing a more 'in your face and screw the consequences' approach being taken to voicing their views).



I'm still not sure where you are getting this idea.  Holding US citizens hostage on the world stage seems to be "in your face and screw the consequences".  Middle Eastern governments have usually been pretty anti-American; if for anything during the Cold War because they were funded by the Soviets.  Look up Khadaffi, Syria's state funding of terrorists, Nasirist anti-Westernism in Egypt, and a general hard-on for America due to its support of Israel.


----------



## 48Highlander (31 Dec 2005)

Piper said:
			
		

> What I meant was the GOVERNMENTS starting to become much more open and vocal in their anti-Americanism (i.e. Iran, they did express their 'feelings' before, but I seem to be noticing a more 'in your face and screw the consequences' approach being taken to voicing their views).



The only thing that's changed is that they (and their views) are getting much more coverage in western media.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4580412.stm

Just a further sign that the violence in Iraq isn't simply an "anti-US" affair.  In the last week there has been 420 incidents throughout Iraq which have caused over 200 casualties.


----------

