71% of Iraqis Want US Out

71% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiCoCcQdjgc&mode=related&search=

Probably more than 71% of Germans wanted the US to leave in 1946.  So what?

Vae victis, diaperheads!

>>1
The 29% that want them to stay *really* want them to stay. They would become refugees if the US just pulled out tomorrow and the majority of that 71% would regret it.

100% of Iraqis want the Iraqi government to control the US presenve in Iraq. It can't defend itself yet.

>>2 It's NOT the same situation. BAD analogy
gtfo

>>4
Would you rather had let saddam had his war before we went in? gb2 1939 Neville.

>>5

Don't try and change the subject. You compared a country that the  majority are really acting as a third party, to a country that were against us.

Maybe if you didn't spew bullshit all the time, you could actually look at things objectively.

>>6
How is that changing the subject. The parallels between Hitler and Saddam are obvious. Just because he was not as succesful as Hitler in terms of expanding territory it doesn't mean he didn't have the same intentions as him.

>>4
NO U

It's EXACTLY the same situation.

A little pissant foreigner who was no real threat to the US thought he could get away with trying to wage war against the US and against US economic interests, because he didn't think we'd go halfway around the world to STOMP HIM THE FUCK DOWN.  And we made an example.  In each case it's kind of a shame that these foreign dictators provoked the US, but all the bad karma lies with them.

Fuck the sandniggers.  Vae victis!

>>8
Hitler were elected while Saddam couped himself into power. The german populace were behind Hitler while the Iraqis were against saddam and therefore not responsible for his actions. They tried to overthrow him at least three times since Desert Storm, but the US intervened every time. The US preferred the devil they knew of course, but it still makes the populace not responsible, and if the US respected democracy as much as it claims then theyd gtfo of Iraq and let them settle their inevitable civil war as fast as they can. As long as the occupation continues, the insurgency against same occupation will continue and the conflict will last for ever, but maybe thats in the US best interests, the american people doesnt seem to mind the bodybags.  

>>9
haha oh wow
so the pre-emptive war against saddam was more just than a pre-emptive war against hitlar would have been

I hope President Bush drinks the blood of every man, woman, and child in Iraq!

WHO THE FUCK R DOSE LIBRELS 2 SAY I CANT KILL SUM1 JUST CUZ DER DIFRUNT?!

>>7

because in WW2, the offical nazi government was at war with us.

now, the the civilians of Iraq (majority of the ones voting) are in the middle of a fight between us and the Iraqi rebel militants. The civilians are a 3rd party while the nazis were NOT

and in the meantime, get your history straight, America was the one who put Saddam in power.

The whole "we're doing this for democracy!" justification is bullshit. We've dismantled as many democracies just as much as we've set them up because they've leaned anti-american. When Iraq had a stable democracy in the 1950s, we ran in there and basically placed someone else in power because THE PERSON THEY VOTED IN (hint hint democracy) was leaning to the USSR rather than to the US.

It was never about making the world a better place or even spreading american ideals. It's all about making the American empire bigger and stronger, and then turning around and taking a giant dump on everyone else in the world.

The whole "America vs. the World" mentality is getting quite tiresome.

>>13 America was the one who put Saddam in power.

Actually it was the Soviets who overthrew King Ghazi in 1958 and put the Ba'ath Party in power as their puppet, but thanks for playing.

>>14
We gave him weapons in his war with Iran, hint hint.

>>15
Iran was communist, had to be done. Also the situation was inverted in the late 80s when the soviets sold them military equipment whilst we sold equipment to Iran. Iran still has some of our huge ass long range missiles and awesome kick ass f14s in service.

Haha I once seriously considerred moving to Iran and joining the airforce just so I can fly one. We've decommissioned our tomcats you see.

>>10
Of course! Attacking germany before the invasion of poland (or before the anshluss and all that) would be wrong. The only indication of future aggression were an increase in mobilization and defense expenditures, a nationalistic and racist propaganda (but who weren't racist in those days) and vaporous ambitions on world domination. If these are reasons enough to trigger the invasion then US should be invaded promptly!

>>16
Iran weren't communist under Mosaddeq, they were nationalist. They committed the crime of believing that their oil were theirs...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mosaddeq

>>17
I never said Iran was communist, therefore you are admitting defeat by putting words in my mouth. They committed the crime of holding the US embassy hostage and expecting us to suck their dick because of the oil crisis.

>>15

Don't mind >>14, he's a retard.

>>18

yes you did.

"Iran was communist, had to be done"

We want out too but that doesn't mean we shouldn't finish doing what we are doing. Fools.

>>20
I was speaking hypothetically.

GOD IS BORED WITH ALL OF YOUR STUPID POLITICS

WHY DONT YOU ALL JUST BLOW YOURSELF UP???

>>22
You must have a special brand of retardation. You are aware that the crushing of Mossadeqs democratic government by CIA occurred in 1953 while the hostage crisis occurred in 1979-1981? One can actually say with 90% certainty that if not the former then not the latter since it was the utter disgust with the corrupt shah that were used by the militant mullahs to gain power and US played right into their hands, just like they are doing today. I mean, what were the strategic goal of Al Qaida by attacking WTC? To start a religious war were Muslims would unite in jihad against the the american devil and its corrupt puppets in saudi arabia, iraq and saudi arabia. Bin Laden hated Saddam (since he was a secular socialist) and now Saddam is dead. Bin Laden effectivly assassinated Saddam by attacking WTC, and US government did exactly as planned, not minding playing the puppet in the fanatics schemes. Well, enjoy your eternal war, may it never end so idiots on both sides will never cease to die.   

>>24

I think you're giving bin Laden way too much credit. He couldn't have known the US would invade Iraq.

>>17 The only indication of future aggression were an increase in mobilization and defense expenditures, a nationalistic and racist propaganda (but who weren't racist in those days) and vaporous ambitions on world domination.

That and Mein Kampf, where Hitler pretty much spelled out his plans and printed them in books for all the world to see, amirite?

>>22 Arabs are Arabs are Arabs.  Your reasoning is not unlike saying, in 1942, "But we shouldn't attack Yamamoto's army in the Phillipines, because the attack on Pearl Harbor was done on the orders of Tojo!  I hear those two don't like one another, and we shouldn't play into their hands by fighting back!  It'll just create disgust and hatred against us!"

PROTIP:  Islam has been at war with the rest of the human race for almost 1350 years.

>>26
I included mein kampf as racist propaganda and vaporous claims. If that is enough to invade then i must ask if you are familiar with the term american century. Its use should be enough to start red fucking dawn.

There are Arabs that aren't Muslims. They can be Christians, Buddhists, Atheists or whatever. And iranians are basicly persians, who are not arabs (they are traditional rivals even, irans greatest enemy is saudi arabia).

PROTIP: Crusades? Colonisation and baptism by the sword? Ever heard of it? You may have heard that the christian conversion of russia were so complete that they erased literacy? The russians used runes but since the christians saw runes as pagan they burned it all and killed anybody who used it. They were so effective that it was believed for a long time that russians had been illiterate before the christians. So my protip is that Christians have been at war with the human race for at least 1700 years, and given its higher body count and lesser respect for science i would say that christianity is not the lesser evil.

>>24
Just so long as they're not communists, the world will be fine. Also the Japanese and Germans felt the same way about us 50 years ago, the Mexicans hated us 100 years ago and the Apaches thought the same way about us 150 years ago. Every new enemy seems like a relentless paranoid crazy motherfucker compared to those in the past because we can see our past enemies straightenning out. The end product is always the same though.

>>26
They can stop being arabs if they want.

>>27
The crusades ended 700 years ago. Anyone who hates someone else for something that happenned 100s of years ago that has been duped by someone smarter than him or is just playing along for whatever reason.

>>28
lol, the world is lucky to have such an enemy as us.

>>28
The crusades were brought up because Anon wrote that islam had been at war with the human race for 1300 years which is quite clear if you bother to read. But i guess its hard to read with that ass you are writing with. And btw, the japanese hated you because you embargoed their oil, the mexicans hated you because you invaded their country, the apaches hated you because you stole their land and exterminated their people. But yeah, other than that they were just crazy. Retaliation is crazy, isn't it? 

>>30
Embargoed their oil? They were the ones testing biological weapons on the Chinese and sneak attacking pearl harbour.

The Mexicans thought they owned Texas, they were incorrect.

The good indians traded corn for cloth with the settlers and intermingled. The bad indians were a bunch of tribesmen who refused to settle down and had a history of warring with settlers. I'm not saying building farms on their land was right, but killing settlers due to a misunderstanding is a little extreme on the indians part. This whole thing could have been avoided if they were more diplomatic. There were no angels on either side, you can't say the indians were doing the right thing.

>>31
You dont seem to be the brightest candle in the candelabrum. Why did they sneak attack pearl harbor? Insanity? Texas was Mexican as Chechnya is Russian and Ireland is Brittish. There were to many good indians and to few bad ones. Had they attacked columbus and his crew the moment they saw them, then indians would have had own countries today. Servility was a sheepish strategy for indians and it got them eradicated.

>>32
They attacked pearl harbour because they wanted to dominate the pacific and saw the US as a major military threat.

Correct, Texas was not Mexican, but the Mexican tyrants needed a method of redirecting young violent men's efforts away from their regime and decided that claiming they need to liberate Texas as the best way to do this.

Indians and settlers were normal in terms of morality, neither had some urge to eradicate the other. The thing is that the curious diplomatic indians who first came into contact with the often harmless peasant settlers were slowly absorbed into the new culture whilst those who maintained their custom of constant war tended to incur exterminatus-like wars from the settlers. This idea that white settlers were sieg heil fuhrer nazis who instantly believed indians are not human and ran off the ships like vikings thirsty for blood is as much bullshit as the idea that blacks were mindless savages with bones through their noses.

>>30

The japanese also hated us because we supported China in war between the two countries. However, they were also corrupt as hell. The Military basically hijacked the government so they could put in the puppet gov't of Manchuria.
>>33

So your saying its the indians fault that the settlers violated almost all their treaties over and over again?

>>34
We supported China because the Japanese were fucking with them. Muscular intelligent highly educated white male colonial powers divided China not.

Spoiler: It's not a perfect world.

I fail to see how you extrapolated that it was the indian's fault that settlers violated their treaties since I explicitly stated

"I'm not saying building farms on their land was right"

referring directly to settlers. I shall now make another clear cut statement to ensure that you will only look stupid by continuing to disagree with me...


The indians declared huge areas of land to be their's and as time went on more and more settlers incurred on their territory. They complained but no one listenned so they took the law into their own hands. As cannot be avoided there were some casualties on both sides and the people attacked claimed the indians were warring savages and it all went downhill from there. It wasn't the indians fault, but it's not as if they did the right thing either. What they should have done is look at the world, realise it's not perfect and resort to using intrigue to preserve their lands instead of escalating things into a conflict with an aggressive proto-democracy.

Yeah, America needs to get the fuck out of Iraq before any more people die.

Actually the reasoning of the Japanese military junta from the time they took power in the early 1930s was really bizarre, from our perspective now.

Admiral Tojo, the zaibatsu industrialists, and the others of the junta came to power around 1932, and one of their concerns was Communism and the possibility of invasion from the Soviet Union.  This wasn't wholly unrealistic.  The world watched the USSR under Lenin invade Poland and the Baltic States in 1925, and only vast amounts of French and British military aid through the League of Nations was able to turn the Red Army back from the gates of Warsaw.  Stalin came to power and began making threats against Finland, which he made good on a few years later, and also demanded that Japan give him the island of Kita-Ezo, which is now called Sakhalin.

So, Tojo and the junta were, perhaps justifiably, scared shitless of what Stalin might do, and they thought their first priority had to be building up their military to resist an invasion.  But they didn't have the industrial base or resources for it.

So Tojo made what turned out to be a Very Bad Decision:  invade China (which was at the time in a state of chaos and anarchy, with no functioning central government, just warlords and bandit armies), set up a puppet government, and use the population as slave labor to mine coal and iron, and grow rice and wheat, and ship them back to Japan.

This gained the attention of the US, which Tojo and the junta didn't really expect.  They didn't think the rest of the world gave a shit about China.  They thought that if the US cared enough to do more than just talk, the US would have tried to help one or another of the stronger warlords to create a government to restore order.  However, from the end of World War I on, there had been a fad in the US (more specifically, among the wealthy East Coast intellectuals who controlled American newspapers and radio) for Chinese food, Chinese games like mah-jong, Chinese style silk dresses for their wives, and what-not.  And these people looked at the Japanese invasion of China with horror and rage.  Hitler and the Nazis weren't thrilled about it either, because they were very good buddies with a Chinese bandit king named Chiang Kai-Shek and they were selling lots and lots of rifles, ammunition, artillery pieces, armored cars, and light tanks to Kai-Shek's army and even had German advisors in China training Kai-Shek's troops, but that's a story for another day.

Anyway, America had pretty much ignored the equal or worse horrors of Kemal Ataturk's war of extermination against Turkish Armenians, Christians, and Kurds going on at the same time, but the owners of the newspapers, radio stations, and newsreel companies fed Americans a steady diet of atrocity stories from China (at least half of which were true) for years, and popular anger against Japan lead directly to Roosevelt ordering a trade and oil embargo against Japan in 1939 or 1940.  Yes, the US exported petroleum back then.

Anyway, the US had been up until that moment one of Japan's biggest and most important trading partners, and this hurt the Japanese economy very badly.  Tojo believed, again, that it was just talk, and that a show of force, maybe a raid on a military target like the naval base at Pearl Harbor, would cause the Americans to realize the seriousness of the matter and quit screwing around.

This was one of history's bigger mistakes, I think.  One can imagine a parallel universe in which Tojo and the junta took a more subtle approach, maybe making some kind of deal with Chiang Kai-Shek themselves to help the Germans prop him up as a local puppet.  Without having drawn US hostility, the Japanese would have felt no pressure to join the Axis and been neutral in World War II or perhaps even joined the Allies at the last moment, when it was obvious who was going to win, like a lot of opportunistic South American countries did.

>>and the people attacked claimed the indians were warring savages

Very nearly all Amerind cultures WERE extremely warlike.  The Cherokee practiced chattel slavery long before any contact with European settlers.  The Mohawk and Pawnee were cannibals.

>>38
The settlers were religious zealots who enjoyed incinerating women because of lack of buoyancy.

>>37
So Japan was a well run and open enough to become as powerful as european and american colonial powers and it had armies with like 100% morale. Why then were their leaders so immensely short sighted and stupid? Why also were they all bald and 3 foot high?