# Iraq War ends



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

I got the following email from the White House:



> Good evening,
> 
> I'm writing to tell you that all US troops will return home from Iraq  by the end of December. After nearly nine years, the American war in  Iraq will end. Our servicemen and women will be with their families for  the holidays.
> The war in Iraq came with tremendous cost. More than a million  Americans served in Iraq, and nearly 4,500 gave their lives in service  to the rest of us. Today, as always, we honor these patriots.
> ...



Seems it truly will come to an end.


----------



## Cain (Oct 22, 2011)

YEAH, AMERICA!


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> YEAH, AMERICA!


That is the opinion here too... as long as they don't get another Bush.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 22, 2011)

You got e-mail from white house? Wow


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> You got e-mail from white house? Wow


Anyone can register at its website. -.-


----------



## ~secret~ (Oct 22, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Anyone can register at its website. -.-



Why would someone do that.

Wasn't the war declared over in 2010 anyways?


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Oct 22, 2011)

It's already over, I think operations are currently classified as peacekeeping or something like that. Anyway, even if America pulls out, the British troops are still gonna be there in the most dangerous areas. I'll be happier once they get the Brits out, tbh, as I have family in the army. I also hope we get out of Afghanistan as well as it's much, much more dangerous.

I'll be interesting to see what happens once everyone is gone, but that's likely not to happen for a long time.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> Why would someone do that.


I like to get mass e-mail from teh Prezidents. :C



> Wasn't the war declared over in 2010 anyways?


No? They just changed the name from 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' to 'Operation New Dawn'.


----------



## ~secret~ (Oct 22, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I like to get mass e-mail from teh Prezidents. :C



Tell him I said hey :3



> No? They just changed the name from 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' to 'Operation New Dawn'.



Like Ramsay said, that was classified as a peacekeeping and assist mission. You can only keep the peace after the war is over.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> Like Ramsay said, that was classified as a peacekeeping and assist mission. You can only keep the peace after the war is over.


Foreign occupation, I think, counts as war.

Look! Even Wikipedia says I'm right!


----------



## ~secret~ (Oct 22, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Foreign occupation, I think, counts as war.
> 
> Look! Even Wikipedia says I'm right!



Dammit, I can't argue against Wikipedia. It's done so much for me.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Oct 22, 2011)

I wasn't arguing that it's not war, I was just saying that _officially_ it's not war. The whole situation over there is totally FUBAR. I can't wait until everyone is out, so I don't have to worry if family members are going to get killed or lose their legs, etc.

Edit: In fact, my cousin just started his Afghan tour last week <=[


----------



## Telnac (Oct 22, 2011)

If we define the end date of a war as when the victor's troops finally go home, then World War II is still going strong (tens of thousands of U.S. troops remain in Germany and Japan even 60+ years after V-E and V-J days were declared.)  Ditto with the Korean War (where our troop deployments remain high, especially given that N. Koreas appears to be as unstable as ever.)  Needless to say, despite whatever Wikipedia says, the last day troops return home is a poor way to define when a war ends.

IMO, the Iraq War ended about 2 years ago when we finally broke the back of the insurgency.  Only minor attacks from splinter groups take place today, so Obama's right in calling US troops home.  Our forces are too small to do much on the security front, and they remain a rallying call for the few insurgents who remain.  Let the Iraqis determine their destiny.  We ousted a brutal dictator.  That was our primary goal, and our secondary goal was to create an Iraq that could stand on its own two feet in the assembly of nations.  That appears to be the case, so it's time for us to go home.

I just wish things were going as well in Afghanistan.  We need to engage the insurgents more on Pakistani soil, and if Pakistan won't grow a pair of balls & allow us to do that, then I really don't see how we can consider them an ally in this war.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 22, 2011)

theyre going to invade afghanistN


----------



## TreacleFox (Oct 22, 2011)

I wouldn't worry, im sure you will find a new war within a few months.


----------



## Sar (Oct 22, 2011)

Huzzah!


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 22, 2011)

[yt]3BN1jSpiyIM[/yt]


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 22, 2011)

I wonder where will you start war next. 
Everybody knows America can't survive without wars :V


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 22, 2011)

This pleases me.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

I thought the war ended in may of 2003?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 22, 2011)

[yt]8y4vIzEkd6s[/yt]

Coca-cola, sometimes war. :v

I do wonder what sort of war is going to come about next, where America's allies will have to tag along.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Oct 22, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I wonder where will you start war next.
> Everybody knows America can't survive without wars :V



Yes, but now we get to pick a shiny, new war!


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 22, 2011)

OssumPawesome said:


> Yes, but now we get to pick a shiny, new war!



They better not fuck up and choose to go after a communist country without real provocation.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Oct 22, 2011)

Gibby said:


> They better not fuck up and choose to go after a communist country without real provocation.



Does having oil count as provocation?


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 22, 2011)

I can't wait till USA picks a fight with Russia or China. They'll get fucking wrecked.

I love Canada. We're like the friend of a douchebag that likes to fight and we don't pick fights, but will back said douchebag in one


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Oct 22, 2011)

Gibby said:


> They better not fuck up and choose to go after a communist country without real provocation.



I really fucking hope they don't drag the British troops along with them.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Gibby said:


> They better not fuck up and choose to go after a communist country without real provocation.



Communist countries are soooo 1980s 

Lets go after Chavez :V



Clayton said:


> I can't wait till USA picks a fight with Russia or China. They'll get fucking wrecked.



China would be too easy.

Naval blockade Chinese Ports. 

/GG in 1 year.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Communist countries are soooo 1980s
> 
> Lets go after Chavez :V
> 
> ...


No way.
[yt]rqfC7teK84U[/yt]

There's just way too many people in China.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Naval blockade Chinese Ports.
> 
> /GG in 1 year.



Except not at all.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 22, 2011)

The chances of China and America going to war in the foreseeable future are quite slim, our economies are too dependent on each other. 

It would be a horrific war if it did happen, though, for both sides.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Clayton said:


> There's just way too many people in China.


That's their main fault.
They import almost all of their resources to support their military and civilian population (They import lots of Oil) 
Cut that off, and they pretty much starve. 

Ground war however, they would ROFLstomp us.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Communist countries are soooo 1980s
> 
> Lets go after Chavez :V


Why? It's not all bad he has done. Diagreement is an unacceptable reason to threaten a sovereign nation with occupation.



> China would be too easy.
> 
> Naval blockade Chinese Ports.
> 
> /GG in 1 year.


China has 1,5 million more troops than US&A. :I


----------



## OssumPawesome (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> That's their main fault.
> They import almost all of their resources to support their military and civilian population (They import lots of Oil)
> Cut that off, and they pretty much starve.
> 
> Ground war however, they would ROFLstomp us.



Letting their people starve isn't the Achilles heel of China.

If anything, history proves they're pretty awesome at recovering from insane isolationism and widespread economic / agricultural disaster.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

OssumPawesome said:


> If anything, history proves they're pretty awesome at recovering from insane isolationism and widespread economic / agricultural disaster.



Well that was before China became a metropolitan and industrialized country. 

The urban population and industries are becoming even more dependent upon foreign resources than they were in any other time in history.
If you cut those off, it would be far worse than anything China has ever had before.



Lizzie said:


> China has 1,5 million more troops than US&A. :I



More troops isn't always a factor in winning a war (I.E. Russia in WW1)


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Why? It's not all bad he has done. Diagreement is an unacceptable reason to threaten a sovereign nation with occupation.


No, but it does make for an acceptable reason to justify proxy conflicts that are executed by drones now more than actual soldiers and mercenaries. Violence is the same, just more convenient for the tax payer.


----------



## Cyril (Oct 22, 2011)

What's this, a politician who actually told the truth?

Hooray for the war being over, it's always been stupid and I'm glad we're done with it.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Well that was before China became a metropolitan and industrialized country.
> 
> The urban population and industries are becoming even more dependent upon foreign resources than they were in any other time in history.
> If you cut those off, it would be far worse than anything China has ever had before.



Fair enough. 

I admit that my knowledge on the topic is pretty limited.



Crusader Mike said:


> More troops isn't always a factor in winning a war (I.E. Russia in WW1)



Starcraft taught me many valuable lessons about quantity vs. quality.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

OssumPawesome said:


> Starcraft taught me many valuable lessons about quantity vs. quality.



Lol Zerg Rushes


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Lol Zerg Rushes


relevant


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> relevant



If only chess was that easy and fun : (


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 22, 2011)

its me against the world

army of clay


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 22, 2011)

Army of Clay themesong :V


----------



## Xenke (Oct 22, 2011)

But,

They aren't all dead yet. :C

:V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 22, 2011)

To all the clever assholes saying we'll have a new war to worry about, we already have it ready to go on Tuesday.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> More troops isn't always a factor in winning a war (I.E. Russia in WW1)



Indeed. Germany could have very well won the second world war if they played their cards right and their strategies weren't fuelled by paranoia and cockiness during the middle of the war. It took until 1943 before the Germans ever faced a defeat (the crushing Russian counterattack at Stalingrad), and they were quality over quantity.

Edit: When the Germans decided to attack the Russians, they did it at the worst possible time of the year, which was when winter was about to begin. They were beaten mostly due to the Germans not knowing how to survive the winter, while the russians did. For example, its the worst weather possible to stage an advance, especially with the oil etc. for the german guns freezing due to the cold, causing constant jamming. However, the russians knew to use oil from animals to counter the freezing and make their guns work as intended without jamming all the time. It's little tricks like that that turned the tide. Just think, if the Germans started the advance at the very end of winter, they would have taken like half of all russia, and the rest of the world would probably be fucked.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Also you have to look out this way since you mentioned ground warfare.  When was the last time America was in a conventional war?  That's right WW2.  All the Chinese have to do is play a defensive of war.  Though you'll try to bring NATO in on this, which would piss off a lot of your allies.



The Korean war has proven that China could smother the US in a ground war. (Human wave tactics D: )


----------



## OssumPawesome (Oct 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> To all the clever assholes saying we'll have a new war to worry about, we already have it ready to go on Tuesday.



The only winning move is not to play.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Oct 22, 2011)

And in a few years, lacking either US protection or a competent government, Iraq will become yet another haven for anti-Western extremists. Mission accomplished!


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> To all the clever assholes saying we'll have a new war to worry about, we already have it ready to go on Tuesday.


keeping americans occupied with a fake war until they can start another real one


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

^Were the Nazis stupid or something?  It's like they didn't realize how fucking cold russia is.


Crusader Mike said:


> China would be too easy.
> 
> Naval blockade Chinese Ports.
> 
> /GG in 1 year.


 


Crusader Mike said:


> That's their main fault.
> They import almost all of their resources to support their military and civilian population (They import lots of Oil)
> Cut that off, and they pretty much starve.
> 
> Ground war however, they would ROFLstomp us.


 The US actually has several, "what if we get in a war with china" plans.
I'll summarize, DON'T START A *GROUNDWAR* WITH CHINA.


Term_the_Schmuck said:


> To all the clever assholes saying we'll have a new war to worry about, we already have it ready to go on Tuesday.


Begin the flamewar gentlemen!


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2011)

The only reason were pulling out the troops is because eventually, that whole area is gonna be a glass window, by their hand, or ours. Collateral damage is damage best minimized. Other than that, I could give a shit. This should have been done years ago, and ideally, we shouldn't have done this at all. Just another illusory bonus from the talking heads on the hill, the damage is already done, and we haven't yet begun to pay for this debacle.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Oct 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> They basically did take most of Russia west of the Urals.  (Why take Siberia?)  Also the world woudn't have been fucked because if it reached that point the yanks would come and save the day.  Though the fascists lost from the start even if we disregard the season; lack of supplies, lack of urban training, bad vehicle design, didn't bring anti-freeze or warm clothing, didn't have the industrial capacity, didn't have the man power, and could barely get anyone on their side.  The amount of partisan activity was ridiculous, which further showed the Germans couldn't control any captured lands without taking losses; or doing their traditional past time, or wiping off entire towns.
> 
> Also be this time look at Germany, the yanks and Brits where having a fun time bombing the Nazi pricks in the ground.  Yay for America's go-to strategy for this time.  Carpet bombing.



If Russia were defeated, then the Nazis and the Japanese would have met and probably would have changed the outcome of World War II. I wonder if Hitler, who believed in the supremacy of the Aryan race, would have done to Japan if they ever did meet up after the hypothetical defeat of Russia.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> ^Were the Nazis stupid or something?  It's like they didn't realize how fucking cold russia is.



Pretty much, invading Russia was perhaps one of the Worst decisions in the war.

Although Germany did bitch slap Russia in WW1, which is kinda wierd...


----------



## Corto (Oct 22, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Indeed. Germany could have very well won the second world war if they played their cards right and their strategies weren't fuelled by paranoia and cockiness during the middle of the war. It took until 1943 before the Germans ever faced a defeat (the crushing Russian counterattack at Stalingrad), and they were quality over quantity.
> 
> Edit: When the Germans decided to attack the Russians, they did it at the worst possible time of the year, which was when winter was about to begin. They were beaten mostly due to the Germans not knowing how to survive the winter, while the russians did. For example, its the worst weather possible to stage an advance, especially with the oil etc. for the german guns freezing due to the cold, causing constant jamming. However, the russians knew to use oil from animals to counter the freezing and make their guns work as intended without jamming all the time. It's little tricks like that that turned the tide. Just think, if the Germans started the advance at the very end of winter, they would have taken like half of all russia, and the rest of the world would probably be fucked.



Besides Hitler being a fucking retard, the reason Germany lost the war was as simple as logistics. They had very limited resources, and ran out of them very fast. When you have an enemy that can make more tanks than you can make anti tank rounds, you have a problem.



> They basically did take most of Russia west of the Urals. (Why take Siberia?) Also the world woudn't have been fucked because if it reached that point the yanks would come and save the day.


The yanks were too busy with Japan to worry about Hitler. 



> Were the Nazis stupid or something? It's like they didn't realize how fucking cold russia is.


No, they were desperate. Besides the whole "Nazism vs Communism" and "Lebensraum" stuff, Germany desperately needed the Russian oil. Also, they actually did attack at the best possible time. The only reason both parties agreed to the no-offense pact was because Germany couldn't wage war with a behemot like Russia while also facing France and the rest of Europe at the time, and the CCCP was nowhere ready for a war, but Stalin was just bidding his time to go against Hitler. Had the Nazis waited any longer they would have been attacked by the Soviet Union. 

Nah, Hitler lost WWII when he won the Spansh Civil war. Had the communist faction managed to beat Franco, there's a chance the western powers had allied with the Nazis to beat the advance of the commies. Fascism and Capitalism vs Communism, instead of Communism and Capitalism vs Fascism.


----------



## israfur (Oct 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> The only reason were pulling out the troops is because eventually, that whole area is gonna be a glass window, by their hand, or ours. Collateral damage is damage best minimized. Other than that, I could give a shit. This should have been done years ago, and ideally, we shouldn't have done this at all. Just another illusory bonus from the talking heads on the hill, the damage is already done, and we haven't yet begun to pay for this debacle.


I thought it was because of all the money the USA was loosing (as if they weren't already in debt)
Buuuuuuut you may be on to something. D:


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Pretty much, invading Russia was perhaps one of the Worst decisions in the war.
> 
> Although Germany did bitch slap Russia in WW1, which is kinda wierd...


If they hadn't of invaded Russia WW2 would've turned out differently.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Oct 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> If they *hadn't of* invaded Russia WW2 would've turned out differently.



à² _à²


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2011)

israfur said:


> I thought it was because of all the money the USA was loosing (as if they weren't already in debt)
> Buuuuuuut you may be on to something. D:


Psshhhh, money my ass. We can always print more. If we were gonna pull out because of money, we should have done that long long ago. Though with this maneuver, maybe the military will actually get what's coming to it. WAR CRIMES TRIALS AND MASSIVE BUDGET CUTS. Because tell me again why we spend almost a trillion dollars on Cold War mentality bullshit? Oh wait, it never ended because we couldn't let it go.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> Psshhhh, money my ass. We can always print more. If we were gonna pull out because of money, we should have done that long long ago. Though with this maneuver, maybe the military will actually get what's coming to it. WAR CRIMES TRIALS AND MASSIVE BUDGET CUTS. Because tell me again why we spend almost a trillion dollars on Cold War mentality bullshit? Oh wait, it never ended because we couldn't let it go.


If they don't slash the military budget that wouldn't make a lick of sense.
Then again knowing the US we're probably going to fuck it up by putting all the money we'd save by putting a fuckton of new troops in Afghanistan.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 22, 2011)

[yt]8mf5nOPazfU[/yt]

doesnt afraid of anything


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> To all the clever assholes saying we'll have a new war to worry about, we already have it ready to go on Tuesday.


So, uh, which one of those you playin' Schmuck?

>.>


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> We can always print more.


Because that is not a bad idea.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 22, 2011)

> ...Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans refused to stay without that guarantee.



Oh.



> GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney accused Obama of an "astonishing failure" to secure an orderly transition in Iraq, and said, "The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government."



BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH oh shut the fuck up romney if it was you in the oval office we'd be there until motherfucking 2020


----------



## Corto (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Pretty much, invading Russia was perhaps one of the Worst decisions in the war.
> 
> Although Germany did bitch slap Russia in WW1, which is kinda wierd...




Pfff, weird? Tsarist Russia was a backwards country, still feudal years after Europe started getting industrialized. What's surprising is that the German Empire didn't manage to steamroll them in two days. And that's not even taking into account the fact that Russia had a bloody civil war while this was going on, the bolsheviks and whatnot. Also, that one was supported by the German Empire in order to disable the Russian Empire and close one front of WWI. Not such a good long-term plan, uh? Bited them right back in the ass.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...ublicans-criticize-obama-over-iraq-withdrawal
Really?... I guess you folks were right, the republicans could criticize Obama over anything.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Corto said:


> Pfff, weird? Tsarist Russia was a backwards country, still feudal years after Europe started getting industrialized. *What's surprising is that the German Empire didn't manage to steamroll them in two days.*


You can pretty much blame the Austro-Hungarians for that.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 22, 2011)

Bambi said:


> So, uh, which one of those you playin' Schmuck?
> 
> >.>



Why do you ask?


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Oh.
> 
> 
> 
> BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH oh shut the fuck up romney if it was you in the oval office we'd be there until motherfucking 2020


Mitt Romney is near the top of my list as people who need to be shot in the face repeatedly, and then spat on as they lay dying. Self righteous mormon cunt.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Why do you ask?


Interested.

Uhm, yeah. You know, just wasn't sure if you played both and didn't give a shit ... in which case, a relevant exchange of STEAM ID's in the future, or gamertags and PSN's ... you know. Uh.

Skies blue today. I'll take my awkward ass somewhere else.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 22, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Interested.
> 
> Uhm, yeah. You know, just wasn't sure if you played both and didn't give a shit ... in which case, a relevant exchange of STEAM ID's in the future, or gamertags and PSN's ... you know. Uh.
> 
> Skies blue today. I'll take my awkward ass somewhere else.



Haha, true bro.  You could'a just PM'd.

Anyway yeah.  BF3, Schmuck88 on PSN.

Rock that shiz.


----------



## Corto (Oct 22, 2011)

I'm not saying no one but the russkies were battling the hitlerites. I'm saying that the yanks had other things in mind, to assume that, had the nazis won barbarossa, they would come riding the cavalry to save the Soviet Union, well, that's pretty far fetched.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 22, 2011)

and when the soldiers get home they will be able to get a proper job, get proper health care and enjoy the american lifestyle after having serverd their country! =D
oh... wait. sorry, my mistake... they will get jack shit for having served and having put their lives on the line in an utterly pointless war. yup, sounds about fair to me...


----------



## Neuron (Oct 22, 2011)

CaptainCool said:


> and when the soldiers get home they will be able to get a proper job, get proper health care and enjoy the american lifestyle after having serverd their country! =D
> oh... wait. sorry, my mistake... they will get jack shit for having served and having put their lives on the line in an utterly pointless war. yup, sounds about fair to me...


My aunt told me that the reason benefits can't be paid out right now is because they have to change the retirement age. I thought it has to do with the debt and giving all our money to the banks that are "too big to fail." Whatever the reason, my aunt is still military republican and doesn't really care because she's already retired and on disability. Wonder how she'll feel if those get cut off randomly because of budgeting.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Lacus said:


> My aunt told me that the reason benefits can't be paid out right now is because they have to change the retirement age. I thought it has to do with the debt and giving all our money to the banks that are "too big to fail." Whatever the reason, my aunt is still military republican and doesn't really care because she's already retired and on disability. Wonder how she'll feel if those get cut off randomly because of budgeting.


She'll probably blame it on Obama, if that happens.


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2011)

Retirement age is too low anyway. Thanks a bunch Baby Boomers for ruining it for EVERYONE. A generation cannot fade into obscurity quicker.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> Retirement age is too low anyway. Thanks a bunch Baby Boomers for ruining it for EVERYONE. A generation cannot fade into obscurity quicker.


I won't be obscured into Silence. I go to those fucking protests to scream and talk and be heard to let them know I am fucking pissed that they've ruined my future. 

Joining the military can't even help me now, and I'm really NOT happy about that.


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2011)

Joining the military helps literally no one. Jussayin'


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> Joining the military helps literally no one. Jussayin'


It helps the Military-Industrial Complex :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I won't be obscured into Silence. I go to those fucking protests to scream and talk and be heard to let them know I am fucking pissed that they've ruined my future.
> 
> Joining the military can't even help me now, and I'm really NOT happy about that.


Also think about it, now that we're withdrawing from Iraq there is going to be a surplus of soldiers, meaning they can shaft soldier's income even more.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 22, 2011)

I'm going to get me some of that sweet sweet blood-tainted contractor pork.


----------



## Heliophobic (Oct 22, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> YEAH, AMERICA!



FUCK YEAH!


----------



## Lobar (Oct 22, 2011)

Instead of pushing back Social Security and Medicare benefits, they should just go on a 15-year or so hiatus.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Instead of pushing back Social Security and Medicare benefits, they should just go on a 15-year or so hiatus.


Fuck baby boomers, originally social security and medicare were liberal ideas.
And all liberals get for it is demonization.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Fuck baby boomers, originally social security and medicare were liberal ideas.
> And all liberals get for it is demonization.



Why don't you just drive on outta this thread on the interstate buddy.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 22, 2011)

How the fuck did the Iraq War thread become about entitlement spending?

The increased Medicare and Social Security costs due to the retirement of the baby boomers are temporary. Temporary costs are not real budgetary issues; that is, we can simply spread them out into relatively miniscule annual payments going into the future.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Onnes said:


> How the fuck did the Iraq War thread become about entitlement spending?
> 
> The increased Medicare and Social Security costs due to the retirement of the baby boomers are temporary. Temporary costs are not real budgetary issues; that is, we can simply spread them out into relatively miniscule annual payments going into the future.


I'm not even sure.

The problem is the baby boomers retiring while it's a temporary cost, the shear number of them retiring are going rape the budget.  Sure we may be withdrawing from Iraq, but even with that social security isn't going to last but a couple more years.


But back on topic,
*geico commercial*
Can withdrawing from Iraq really save you 15% or more on the US budget?
Is the Barret 50 cal overpowered?(nsfw)


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> That's a matter of opinion/where you were deployed.
> 
> It was one of the main reasons while I signed up, and want to continue for a long time to come.



kool-aid drinker detected


----------



## Onnes (Oct 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm not even sure.
> The problem is the baby boomers retiring while it's a temporary cost, the shear number of them retiring are going rape the budget.  Sure we may be withdrawing from Iraq, but even with that social security isn't going to last but a couple more years.



Consider the CBO's budget outlook for Social Security, beginning on Chapter 3. Taking the graph of projected spending as a percent of GDP, you can clearly see the increase due to the to the retiring baby boomers overlaid on the long-term trend. Even in the worst budgetary years, the baby boomers fail to consume an additional 1% of GDP; in fact, their estimated consumption tends to be of the same magnitude as the natural variation in Social Security spending due to economic volatility. Far more relevant to any budget is the long-term trend in Social Security spending, which is relatively stable past 2030 and could largely be fixed by changing the current regressive payroll tax.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

By the way, how much were we spending annually on the Iraq war?


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Trus obnaruzhena zdesÊ¹.
> 
> I don't even know what "kool-aid drinker" is supposed to represent.  Please enlighten me.



When you join the military you must drink the kool-aid.  And by that I mean actually believe that PICK UP THOSE CIGARETTE BUTTS SPECIALIST is somehow helping your country.  Doubly so if you work for certain federal agencies.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 23, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Trus obnaruzhena zdesÊ¹.


I am intensely curious about what this means, and Google is not being helpful.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 23, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> It's a super secret phonetic phrase; since he said a phrase I didin't know/understand I'll do the same!  :V
> 
> I don't think your that interested, though if you must just PM me.  No one wants to reveal the secret now do we?



Tell me damnit ;_;


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 23, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> It's a super secret phonetic phrase; since he said a phrase I didin't know/understand I'll do the same!  :V


The kool-aid thing is a reference to the Jonestown Massacre, where cult members were instructed to drink poisoned kool-aid and died. It's a way of calling people gullible or easily lead. 



Crusader Mike said:


> Tell me damnit ;_;


This is what you get for being the friendly neighborhood Russian, Bat.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Also think about it, now that we're withdrawing from Iraq there is going to be a surplus of soldiers, meaning they can shaft soldier's income even more.



Uhm, except the fact  we are still in Afghanistan. That and people have contracts to fulfill before they can just up and leave the military. Its not going to be like the end of WWII where there was a massive influx of people coming back into the workforce. 

How many troops do we have in Iraq anyways? I know its no where near the amount we had when we invaded in 2003 (I think in 03 it was around half a million troops).


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Uhm, except the fact  we are still in Afghanistan. That and people have contracts to fulfill before they can just up and leave the military. Its not going to be like the end of WWII where there was a massive influx of people coming back into the workforce.
> 
> How many troops do we have in Iraq anyways? I know its no where near the amount we had when we invaded in 2003 (I think in 03 it was around half a million troops).


If I'm not mistaken 130k


----------



## Onnes (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> If I'm not mistaken 130k



It looks like the current force is more on the order of 40k.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> If I'm not mistaken 130k



The current levels of 50,000 troops will be reduced to 150+embassy staff.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> The current levels of 50,000 troops will be reduced to 150+embassy staff.



With 5000 "contractors" for security purposes [insert Blackwater type remark here].


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> With 5000 "contractors" for security purposes [insert Blackwater type remark here].


[$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$]


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 23, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> [$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$]



This post in musical form.

[yt]5ujXf7jZo50[/yt]


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> [$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$]



I know someone who was a contractor, came from the U.S Rangers, went private. Was paid 160k plus to that. For a year.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 23, 2011)

Hi I just got an HD from the army after four years 0-1 SIGINT oh what's that $300,000 contract why I think I will


----------



## Dj_whoohoo (Oct 25, 2011)

That's cool to know that were are finally taking everyone out.


----------



## AuroraCaribou (Oct 25, 2011)

It's about time. We shouldn't have been over there in the first place.


----------

