edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/01/iraq.main/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/01/iraq.main/index.html)

I was ready to blow in to a full rant this weekend when I heard the US announce their new government for Iraq, with a line up which made most Iraqi's cringe (gave a new dimension to the phrase "american puppet").
So I was stunned, and bloody happy, to see the *actual* Iraq council step in, say "wait a sec, no. We want these guys.."
That is the true sign of soverignity, the first sign of Iraqi's taking things in to their hands (even if it is still only secluded to a small number of people at this moment, but hey, they're Iraqi's, so better than before).
Now I'd like to see this temporary government take such an attitude. Military control, policy changing, diplomatic relations.. If they can possess such elements, then the new government definately has my faith.

Now, if this is allowed to happen, is a different story.
Take the military control issue, for example. How can a government govern, if it can't control the use of force in its own country? We'll see, I guess.

How can a government govern, if it can't control the use of force in its own country?

I don't know. Maybe you should ask the West Germans from 1945 to 1954. Or maybe the Japanese from 1945 to 1955.

Really Halo, you have no clue do you?

theres a good point in that post, about the iraqi's making decisions for themselves

that looks promising

theres a good point in that post, about the iraqi's making decisions for themselves

They've been doing baby steps all along... and the CPA being dissolved is a damned good sight in my opinion.And by 2006... (http://news.yahoo.com/news?) The United States and Britain circulated a revised resolution on post-occupation Iraq Tuesday that would give the new interim government control over the Iraqi army and police and end the mandate for the multinational force by January 2006 at the latest.Obviously, that's contingent upon everything being okie-dokie. It probably will be, but I don't like being rushed. If you're going to do something, do it right.

I'm no pessimist when it comes to Iraq, but I know my history and this is about 8 years quicker than anything we've managed before. Good thing? Probably. What the @#%$ does any of us know anyway? We're all pissing in the wind here.

'Really Halo, you have no clue do you? '

- *blink*

Did you just compare contemporary war efforts in Iraq to.. occupied Nazi Germany after the Second World War??

Anything that can get our soldiers home faster is all good in my book.

Not one day longer than they should, not one day less to get the job done, correctly.

Did you just compare contemporary war efforts in Iraq to.. occupied Nazi Germany after the Second World War??

Yes, and the differences should be obvious.

'Yes, and the differences should be obvious.'

- No @#%$ @#%$, you idiot.

:rollin

Like Jon Stewart said, we'd have acted completely different and not nearly been as strong a country if the French rescued us during the Revolutionary War and then stayed a few years to write our constituion and police our lands and create our government.

Comparing Iraq to World War 2 is retarded -- different times, different themes, different world. That is unless you also want to compare how retarded it was for Bush to suggest a full combat drop into Iraq (which would have been the second in history since World War 2) only to find out on the ground that they had an abundance of rpgs and anti aircraft weapons and probably would have killed a third of our forces before they hit the ground.

No kidding, retarded hardly covers it.

And now watch Akipt pull an "Osgiliath" and laugh his way out of the situation.

Oh the predictability.

http://www.actionla.org/actionla_images/iraq_mcdonalds3.jpg

Huh huh you so funny L2. C0cksucker.

http://iwo-jima-memorial.visit-washington-dc.com/Iwo-Jima-Memorial-1.jpg

oH n0z! If I us3 teh p4rody th3n teh TERRORISTs have alr34dy w0n!!!!11one

Im sorry, I forgot, we are at War with Oceania, we have ALWAYS been at war with Oceania.. Ill get back in line now.

Because y'know, France helping was the turning point in the Revolution. That example is so horrid you'd think L2 came up with it.

Wow Zehn, you need to pick up a history book.

February 6, 1778 - American and French representatives sign two treaties in Paris: a Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a Treaty of Alliance. France now officially recognizes the United States and will soon become the major supplier of military supplies to Washington's army. Both countries pledge to fight until American independence is won, with neither country concluding any truce with Britain without the other's consent, and guarantee each other's possessions in America against all other powers.

The American struggle for independence is thus enlarged and will soon become a world war. After British vessels fire on French ships, the two nations declare war. Spain will enter in 1779 as an ally of France. The following year, Britain will declare war on the Dutch who have been engaging in profitable trade with the French and Americans. In addition to the war in America, the British will have to fight in the Mediterranean, Africa, India, the West Indies, and on the high seas. All the while facing possible invasion of England itself by the French.

June 18, 1778 - Fearing a blockade by French ships, British Gen. Clinton withdraws his troops from Philadelphia and marches across New Jersey toward New York City. Americans then re-occupy Philadelphia.

July 10, 1778 - France declares war against Britain.

August 8, 1778 - American land forces and French ships attempt to conduct a combined siege against Newport, Rhode Island. But bad weather and delays of the land troops result in failure. The weather-damaged French fleet then sails to Boston for repairs.

July 11, 1780 - 6000 French soldiers under Count de Rochambeau arrive at Newport, Rhode Island.

August 14, 1781 - Gen. Washington abruptly changes plans and abandons the attack on New York in favor of Yorktown after receiving a letter from French Admiral Count de Grasse indicating his entire 29-ship French fleet with 3000 soldiers is now heading for the Chesapeake Bay near Cornwallis. Gen. Washington then coordinates with Gen. Rochambeau to rush their best troops south to Virginia to destroy the British position in Yorktown.

August 30, 1781 - Count de Grasse's French fleet arrives off Yorktown, Virginia. De Grasse then lands troops near Yorktown, linking with Lafayette's American troops to cut Cornwallis off from any retreat by land

September 5-8, 1781 - Off Yorktown, a major naval battle between the French fleet of de Grasse and the outnumbered British fleet of Adm. Thomas Graves results in a victory for de Grasse. The British fleet retreats to New York for reinforcements, leaving the French fleet in control of the Chesapeake. The French fleet establishes a blockade, cutting Cornwallis off from any retreat by sea. French naval reinforcements then arrive from Newport

Ya wanna get snippy with me? Thats fine Zehn, but at least do yourself the coutesy of knowing what the @#%$ you are talking about.
Stick to random swarminess and penis jokes, anything more than that and you tend to get in over your head.

You *don't* think the French were the ultimate card in America winning the War of American Independence?!
Oh god.

It wasn't the "skill" and "determination of freedom" that won the war.
If Britain were not involved in fighting the French in every corner of the bloody earth, you'd have had the entire country, its colonies, its manpower, and its resources to face.
As it were, you faced a handful of retarded generals (bar one.. who lacked any serious foresight), cabinet of ministers and policy makers who were utterly redundant, a crazy monarch, and a fraction of the manpower available to the British at the time. A serious lack of attritional supply lines due to French intervention, occupying priorities in the Med and surrounding lands, and ultimately a government who failed to recognize the seriousness of the situation.

Don't think it was anything more than the retarded nature of British effort (or the lack thereof) and action, and the combination of French funding and pre-occupation, that won the war.

ya, aint fate cool.

If Hitler wasnt such an idiot then he wouldnt have swept southward, delaying Barbarossa so that it became too late in the season and panzers dramatically stalled in the mud outside of Stalingrad.
Or if he didnt believe that DDay was a ploy and the actual invasion was coming at Caliss, so he kept Rommels Tank divisions in reserve, allowing the Allies to gain a foothold.

But if he wasnt an idiot, then we wouldnt have been in those situations to begin with.

The world is what it is, mostly due to the happy accidents of fate and fortune. Or maybe something else.

'The American struggle for independence is thus enlarged and will soon become a world war. After British vessels fire on French ships, the two nations declare war. Spain will enter in 1779 as an ally of France. The following year, Britain will declare war on the Dutch who have been engaging in profitable trade with the French and Americans. In addition to the war in America, the British will have to fight in the Mediterranean, Africa, India, the West Indies, and on the high seas. All the while facing possible invasion of England itself by the French.'

- Mhm, no kidding.
The Honnoverian line's obsession with clinging to its German possessions meant an utter change to Walpole policy of staying the heck out of continental affairs. Having done so would have meant a gigantic gain in resource, priority, and focus on British interests, which, in the long run, would have done more harm to the French and Spanish than actually fighting them in open war, time and time again.
OK, intervention with the likes of Napoleon is a given, but the utter abandonment of Walpole policy meant continuous struggle against combined European powers.

Britain excelled in industrious and economic progression, strength, and expansion. Granted, it did it better by knocing the competition down a couple of notches every so often (see: Spanish War of Succession), but @#%$.. would it have been worth it if it meant America was what India would be.

Hitler? Pfft. Would have trembled.

No. I'm not a nostalgic fool.

I AM CALM!

Guess it's too much to ask that Halo refrain from any further "stupid American can't even find Europe on a map" jokes...

D-Day 1899 and President Denzel Washington is leading liberation of New Zealand from the Nazi's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=OCP2Z2YM22UTZQFIQMFCM5WAVCBQY JVC?xml=/news/2004/05/30/ndday30.xml)

One 10-year-old in a Northamptonshire school thought it was the day the "Americans came to rescue the English".

:rollin

INSIDE THE DECISION FOR WAR IN IRAQ

Rumsfeld: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bush: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Powell: [whispering] Germans?
Tenet: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bush: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns] What the @#%$ happened to the White House I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you George, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Saddam, dead! Bin Ladenr -
Cheney: Dead! Bush's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bush: We're just the guys to do it.
Condelessa: Let's do it.
Bush: LET'S DO IT!!
[Chaos ensues--for most of the rest of the decade]


yes, Dean Wormer.. the first target in the war on terror.

Like Jon Stewart said, we'd have acted completely different and not nearly been as strong a country if the French rescued us during the Revolutionary War and then stayed a few years to write our constituion and police our lands and create our government.

Comparing Iraq to World War 2 is retarded -- different times, different themes, different world.

This is like the best quote ever, I think. Kelraz, I seriously wish we were arguing about something, because after you said this, that argument would have been all mine, bitch. :p

What I meant was ... without too many frills since I'm raiding:

World War 2 we took a country over that was warring with us, Iraq is a country that we were assisting with an overthrow of their government. (thus WW2 being unlike Iraq)

On one hand, we were stopping an agressive offensive force bent on world domination. On the other we were freeing a country from a dictator, at least so says our government anymore. (thus, Iraq being like the Revolutionary War)

But yeah, I slipped up there and it makes me look like a big ole dummy :)

I'd give you credit L2 for owning me with that powerpoint presentation but it comes down to semantics. You believe the French were the ultimate deciding factor in America winning the war. They were indeed crucial, but the -turning- point lies more with the victories at Bennington and Saratoga that proved that the Americans had a chance and were willing to fight tooth and nail for that chance.

That brought the French in and the rest as they say is history.

Anyways. On to the actual point. I said it was an analgoy worthy of you simply because you've been known to come us with some even shittier then my own, but thanks for tossing penis jokes as my schtick though I don't recall the last one I told. I enjoy Polish jokes far more.

Anyways.

If the Iraqi citizens had risen up against Saddam and kicked his ass out with American/British/etc...assistance, then yeah maybe Mr. Stewart has a point. However, right or wrong, we were the ones that went in there guns blazing. We eliminated the reigning government, it's our responsibility to make sure that a new one gets set up.

Or would you prefer we go in, kick the @#%$ out of people, then leave? Worked wonders for Afghanistan.

I <3 that link Akipt.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>He said: "I asked him how he knew material which we had not covered in school. He told me he had picked it up from a D-Day game he played on his computer."<hr></blockquote>

I like that link Akipt. It's good to know that American kids arent the only dipshits out there. :)

"We do study the Second World War but we do not tend to concentrate on particular military events or leaders. We look at issues that are relevant to children themselves. They learn about evacuation for instance, or the issuing of gas masks."

That statement though, it's wrong in so many ways.

'One 10-year-old in a Northamptonshire school thought it was the day the "Americans came to rescue the English".'

- Hold on... that's exactly what YOU guys thought the entire thing was about.

Anywho, I hope you're laughing about comparing 10 year olds to the entire American populace.
'Cause I sure am, baby.

The difference Halo is we freely admit to it. 8/

I notice you and your friend are falling back on the "you guys are retarded" argument since you lost this one from the start Halo.

Back into the closet Winterworg. The above statement perhaps proves the point that Halo and "his friend" are "falling back on".

LOL

Im sorry, I forgot, we are at War with Oceania, we have ALWAYS been at war with Oceania.. Ill get back in line now.Don't you mean Eurasia? Oh well, I might have mixed them up I guess...

They switch it in the book to illustrate the point.
At one point they are at war and have always been at war with Eurasia, then Orwell to demonstrate the "thought control", the government switches it and they are at war with Oceania and have always been at war with Oceania.

if i'm not mistaken the book takes place in oceania and they've always been at war with eurasia but at the big finale of hate week they quickly change it to eastasia.. something like that, this is all unimportant of course since i got the point and all.