*DAMN R6 Forum

So, Iraq is now a sovereing nation, two days ahead of schedule.  It makes sense to bump it forward two days, to throw off any intent of insurgents to do something major on the 30th.  Just caught the tail end of the speeches and such, so i dont have anything particularly controverial or interestign to put out there

Now then! Lets hear what you all think and...*ding ding* LET THE FLAMES BEGIN!!  :)

Perhaps you know where billions of pounds worth of Oil Revenue have disspeared to while being "looked after" by the US possibly?


ps... Good luck to the poor bastards.

Lol sorry let me re-phrase that

Billions of Dollars woth of Oil Revenue

Damn GS and BFG must hate eachother. You two found a way to flame eachother a bit on a positive thread.  

Congrats iraq, may you now know some peace.

This isn't positive! The Iraqi people don't have the resources to maintain their government. If the US leaves Iraq they won't last a week before chaos starts.

You think its ugly now... You wait untill the 'security' of iraq is handed over and the US starts to move troops out (which im sure bush will want to do just before elections)

Iraq is still a country at war.... And if Afghanistan is anything to go by then they are in for some pretty bad times.

They have a date set for security?

Place your bets now on how long the country will last on its own.


I give it 6 months.

4 months, 19 days, 21 hours, 47 minutes, 52 seconds.

But the majority will be.

Congrats Iraq with this meaningless gesture you may now begin fighting your own civil war!

why keep forces in Irak ?

Apparently, 140 000 troups are not able to maintain peace in the country, do you really think the US is going to keep that kind of troops for years. I dont think so. And i'm not even talking about the cost...
And if they leave say 10 000 troups, its not going to make any difference with no troops at all, so what would be the point in leaving anybody behind ?

The US troops based in Germany are not there for security purpose, unlike in Irak. You cant really compare both.

Apparently no one in Washington does.

yeah, and i say 140 000 US troops cant currently take out a few hundred Iraki rebels. Do you think 10 000 will do ?


thats exactly why they're still in Germany. Dont tell me you think this country still needs US soldiers to secure their streets lol

I'm saying you don't NEED 140,000 U.S. troops to take out a few hundred Iraqi rebels.  Most of those troops are support, not combat arms.  Having probably never served in the military yourself, I wouldn't expect that you even know the difference.  Leaving 10,000 troops (mostly Special Forces) in theater gives you the same urban warfare fighting capability that a 140,000 troop Army gives you.  Again, assuming you have never served in the military, I wouldn't expect that you even know what the hell I'm talking about.


Actually, I wasn't talking about security from WITHIN, they were there for security from outside attack (mainly from the Warsaw Pact Countries up until 1990-1991).  And yes, they are still there in case of some outside attack, because you never know when an enemy might decide to attack you.  Oh, but then you are of the French mindset that says you should be weak militarily so that you can just surrender to the enemy so they don't destroy your country.  Gotcha.

and you are of the mindset that keeps a M60 gun at home just in case some russian will invade the US just to rape your wife and steal your TV !

you still did not check the definition of "sarcasm", did you ?

another gun-slinging republican

we know . . . the ones that give America its bad name

My Headline Would Read More Like This:

"Ex-Felon breaks into home and forgets that he does not own a gun because he's an Ex-Felon and should be under constant watch" ;D

Would be nice if you weren't dreaming.....This is what your headline would read with that mindset:

"This idiot thought that ex-felons don't have guns, wasn't worried, and got shot and killed in his home."[/size]

I support guns for defense that stay at home.

Hey, I personally would LOVE to own the firearms GS does, especially the one that shall remain nameless. ;)

As for the oil stuff, GS, you can occupy a country economically and keep a light presence militarily. Which is pretty much what we're planning to do. Another couple of the reasons Iraq hasn't begun leaking oil like a sieve yet is because the saudis wouldn't like it cutting into their business, and we like the saudis remember? Also, the Iraqi resistance fighters keep blowing the damn pipelines up. But that's ok for now, this oil isn't meant for use today, it's meant for use 5-10 years from now when the oil situation gets really tough.

The other major reason the bush administration attacked Iraq was to provide a forward operating base for the middle east. Israel just wouldn't cut it if we needed to stage major military operations in the area and the saudis weren't even that excited about letting us in for the first gulf war.

In sum, the major objectives were to secure Iraqi oil reserves by installing a government that will be sympathetic to the US; and to provide a staging area for a large military force, should we ever need it. I honestly believe a lesser goal was to spread democracy to the middle east though it was not a major motivating factor.