Korean Job Discussion Forums

SPINOZA · Joined: 10 Jun 2005 Location: $eoul

The exact same people who supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 are now arguing we should pull out and "bring our boys home".

The exact same people! You are but dung.

Now that we've created this appalling mess, we've got to continue until what we leave behind, if and when we eventually do leave, is better than what was there beforehand. If we pull out anytime soon, we will leave a gargantuan humanitarian crisis. The state of affairs prior was superior. I did not support the war, but now that it's done, sticking at it and indeed significantly intensifying the war effort is the best position to hold, I feel. I agree with Bush - send more troops.

We need a full-blown occupation of the country and in a way the worse it gets the better, since other countries (like China) are gonna have to send troops if it starts to seriously take the piss how bad it gets. I'd also throw some big incentives Kim Jong Il's way, what with his 1m+ army standing around idle. They want oil, don't they? Well here's pay day.

RACETRAITOR · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Location: Seoul, South Korea

I was against the invasion in the first place, and now I'm against them leaving. What annoys me the most about the people who say the US should pull out is that they think "The US did its part, and now the Iraqi people are failing to step up and shoulder the responsibility." What part of military occupation do they not understand?

I'm also disappointed the UK is pulling out their troops this year (or at least greatly reducing the numbers). They were right there in the first wave too, and are also liable.

By the way, before anyone starts calling me names, most of my friends here are American soldiers. Most of them are against the war, some have been there, some are now, and some are going. They signed up to serve their country so they had an idea what they were getting involved in. It was their choice, but the Iraqis didn't get any choice.

By the way, I mostly disagree with your suggestion for North Korea.

SuperFly · Joined: 09 Jul 2003 Location: In the doghouse

I can't wait till the invasions of Iran and Syria so we can get some fresh threads on this forum. Just KIDDING! Razz

PS - not all republicans want war you guys. Jeezus...

Going out for dinner with wife and mother in law now...please don't kill me while I'm gone. Will check this thread later for interesting posts!

blynch · Joined: 25 Oct 2006 Location: UCLA

i beg u bums, please don't start another "iraqi" thread on this board. my stomach is now sore from laughing! by the 2nd or 3rd one, my eyes were watering and the 4th one was sufficient to cause a bit of scrambled egg to come flying out and soil my computer screen! good comedy is always appreciated though, and i think u all should team up with rush 'bimbo' and make a movie. u could call it "red and redder". it'd be huge! plus, u'd be so busy that u wouldn't have to come here under the guise of looking for "serious discussion".

nonetheless heres my 2 won again. first, it was important to remove saddam from power.(especially if he had all those WMDs and that connection with 9/11.) now the reality is the usa had created the current situation. according to the press secretary tony snow... "the war is tough" (especially if you're fighting it from an office in washington DC) "but the solution is not to get out." (in other words, don't cut and run!) "it is to provide the kinds of resources and reinforcements our troops need to get the job done." (in other words, support the troops!) "and at the same time say to the iraqis, you guys got to step up." (but don't use timetables, schedules, places, dates, names, etc etc...)

god bless america...

swetepete · Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Location: a limp little burg

I understand that it could get sticky with all the other countries in the area who have a substantial Kurd population, but what about partitioning Iraq into three separate countries--a Sunni one, a Shia one, and Kurdish one?
There would still need to be a large force of international troops there to make sure it didn't erupt into outright war between the three--revenge attacks and resource competition would no doubt be a huge problem. But the main problem with staying, be it in larger or smaller numbers, is that the situation won't necessarily get any better, even after a five or ten year occupation.
Obviously the war-planners really shat the bed on this one, but after they spewed everywhere they then set the bed on fire, and then killed the cleaning lady and stuffed her under the mattress.
Plus it was a stolen bed in the first place.
I dunno...it's all pretty goddamn bleak any way I can look it at, but I think a three-state system might actually be the best bet. Worked for the Koreas, right? And India-Pakistan-Bangladesh, right?
What could possibly go wrong?

hellofaniceguy · Joined: 10 Jan 2003 Location: On your computer screen!

The Iraq invasion was wrong. But...it's the fault of the American voters for voting for Bush.

blynch · Joined: 25 Oct 2006 Location: UCLA

swetepete · Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Location: a limp little burg

Bynch--
What about a combination of options 2 and 3? Might it work to invite the other local interests in--all of whom are hoping to avoid yet another devastating regional war-- while giving each of the 3 main Iraqi groups their own zone?
Certainly option 1 is no good.
Option 4, the carpet bombing one, might be problematic in that all the insurgents live with their families...like, woman and children and whatnot. Looks bad on TV.
Option 5...hmmm....now THAT might work.

Muffin · Joined: 01 Mar 2006 Location: Turkey

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:46 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

blynch · Joined: 25 Oct 2006 Location: UCLA

huffdaddy · Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Sincinnatislink · Joined: 30 Jan 2007 Location: Top secret.

Sincinnatislink · Joined: 30 Jan 2007 Location: Top secret.

Rapacious Mr. Batstove · Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Location: Central Areola

I offer no solutions as I can never see anything working towards making Irag a peaceful place. Not American troops, not UN intervention, not democracy. Send in 20,000 troops, the news in the future will still be "car bomb kill 50 in (insert Iraqi city name). 20,000 more troops will just be 20,000 more troops in a dangerous place waiting in line to be caught in the crossfire of a religious war which will outlast any type of foreign intervention. So, push forward, move back, set up this government, it will all equate to nothing,. No lessons have been learned from the Palastine/Gaza occupancy. There never has been peace in the middle east and there never will be, I just accept this as the way things are.

bjonothan · Joined: 29 Apr 2003 Location: All over the place

Even though Saddam was an a$$, he kept things under control I suppose. I supported the war, and I support the coalition staying in there. Right now, we are killing muslim extremists and I think that is good. I hope we can get things under control and not take notice of public opinion and once the job is finished, we can move on to Iran and all the other places that support people coming over to our countries and killing our people in the name of a paedophile that claims to be a prophet. Muslims in my opnion are the scummiest people around and need to taught a lesson that they can't start wars in the name of their paedophile...I mean prophet...and that they don't belong in our countries because they simply do not adapt and cause too many problems. It is quite ironic that they leave the $hithole they come from for some reason and are intent on making our countries like theirs. Australia has stopped a few major terrorist attacks now. One very recently had them putting RPGs into a building and bringing it down 9/11 style. I say, kick some ass and move on to the next hot spot until they learn their lesson and stop causing trouble.