Why Iraq?

[montana_charlie]

Many people wonder why we invaded Iraq. Many wish (some loudly) that George W. would lay it all out so there's no misunderstanding.
I have a belief about the reason, and every once in a while some 'analyst' will partially allude to the things I believe are the underlying facts.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it makes more sense to me than the screams about lies, revenge, and smoke-and-mirror politics.
I've said it before, and I will one more time. In my opinion...

George Bush went into Iraq to split up the Islamic power block...in order to set the stage for conducting a decades-long War On Terror.

You start with a fairly westernized situation in Turkey, a still-grateful Kuwait, and a semi-friendly Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is leaning our way, and (of course) there is Israel. Then (because of 911) we are able to go into Afghanistan without the world going nuts.
That leaves the Iran/Iraq/Syria land mass as a playground for anti-western thinkers.

The final piece needed to create a checkerboard in the Middle East is...Iraq...which we already had some long-standing legal reasons for hooking into.

Once the checkerboard is complete, no two 'radical' countries share enough of a border to become a power block, and you have a layout where jihadists and democracies have each other surrounded.
The advantage to us in that configuration is that, in each of those democracies, we have a military presence which can strike in any direction without...asking permission to fly over France...begging to use seaports in Turkey...or launching 72-hour bombing missions from Florida.
Besides, it's much easier to 'hold ground' that you are on, than to rush in from outside to 'take it back'.

GW had enough legal reasons to smack Iraq...without gathering a bunch of others. But, to bring the U.N. aboard...and to convince western allies to help, he went looking for more.

The WMD story was believed by most of the intelligence agencies around the world. If they were all wrong, it was merely because Saddam kept everything so well hidden, nobody knew that he destroyed them. (I am still saying 'if' because it's still true that he had ample time to move them elsewhere.)
In any event, the WMD thing was primarily used to get the U.N. onboard...because it was the only thing which had the broad reach necessary to get them off the dime. But the U.N. wouldn't budge...wouldn't screw up their money-maker...and the same thing held back (some of) the western 'allies'.

So, WMD was one of several reasons presented to the world for taking out Saddam. Because they didn't exist, or had been moved, the anti-war crowd made that issue into their banner - because the other issues they tried to use didn't pan out.
But the underlying reason for taking control of Iraq was a need to plug a west-friendly government into that piece of geography...and keep it alive long enough to invite us to stay.

Knowing that would be a straw that the jihadist's camel could not bear, it would also attract a huge number of the world's terrorists.
That places Americans on the front line in the War On Terror, but they are Americans with guns and body armor...not office workers and airline passengers...and that front line is not HERE.

If we must fight a war that will last for decades...against an emeny who has no regard for 'rules of engagement' or 'non-combatant status'...where better (from the American citizen's point of view) than some semi-important far-away desert which can (if necessary) be rebuilt a hundred years from now, after the war is over?

Yes, the terrorists (of all stripes) are ripping into the Iraqi people. I am surprised it has taken so long...but as they learn which side cares about their lives, they help us (with information, at least) more and more as time goes by.
Their problem has been (and is)...just like they were afraid that Saddam would return to power...they are half-convinced that the jihadists will win. That conviction is reinforced by the public 'abettors' in this country.
When they finally throw off the 'cowardice(?)' that has been ingrained in them by their dictators, they can make it impossible for the troublemakers to feel secure in their towns.
Without security, the bad guys can no longer operate effectively in small groups...and can only hope to succeed by advancing in large numbers.

That is EXACTLY what we want...and Bush knows it.

(So far, the closest we have come to that has been in operations like Fallujah.
That place (and others like it) are like vacuum cleaners which suck in terrorists.
Once the 'bag is full' we go in and 'empty it'...then back off to let it 'fill again'.
But that strategy is lost on the militarily-ignorant anti-war loud mouths who can't see it as anything but 'wasted effort' when the bad guys move back in. The movies have made them believe it's better to have 6-man Special Ops units, running around killing bees, than to take out an entire hive with an armored brigade. What idiots we have...!)

In my opinion, we should never consider a total withdrawal from Iraq.
And any reduction in force should not be an option until after the 'big' battles are done...if it takes fifty years.
CM

[Ivantherussian03]

I have an opinion on this, but thought politics were not allowed.

[MT Gianni]

I read a book " The demon? in the basement" or some such that suggested smalpox virus suppossedly held safe in the USA and USSR had been taken out for "research purposes" by ex-Soviet scientists who were currently employed by Sadaam Husein. I think that the weapons could have been small enough to fit in a shoebox and kill 1/2 the western world if that were the case. Since there were mass graves there was mass destruction. The term is as definable as Saturday night special. Gianni.

[dale clawson]

The headcase in Iran believes he is a messiah to lead the muslims to eliminate the leaders in countries that are friendly to the US or Isreal. He wants to force the whole world under the muslim faith or control. If he gains a foothold in Iraq then Saudia Arabia and Kuwait will fall and then our oil supply is gone. If we pull out, we Had better come up with alternative fuels quick. If We could develop our alternative, clean burning fuels, we could pull the teeth on a lot of evils by cutting off their wealth. My dos centavos. Dale

[MT Gianni]

Muslims outnumber christians worldwide 8-3. Their traditional method of spreading the word has always been sword and horse. They have arrived at new tools not at new methods. My 2 cents. Gianni.

[Boz330]

MT put it much more eloquently that I could have. I have long beleived that Iraq is the perfect base of operations for anything that needs to be done in the middle east. If we pull out and need to retake that ground at a later date, the cost in lives will be much greater than that to hold it. We still have troops in Germany and Japan 60+ years after the fact and Korea 50+.
As far as alternative fuels go there are plenty but the fact is that they are very expensive. People scream bloody murder when gas goes up 10 cents can you imagine 300%. When I lived in SA in the early 80s they were almost 100% independent of crude oil. Their gas and diesil came from coal, but the price was $2.65 a gallon when it was 55 cents here. We have one of the largest coal reserves in the world in this country we could use.
I could go on but my typing is to slow and I have to try and make a buck so I can turn it over to Uncle Sugar. New Orleans needs to be rebuilt.

Bob

[Bret4207]

I think we can talk about this if we agree ahead of time that we're all entitled to a different opinion and that we can respectfully disagree. So I'll put it like this- IF YOU WANT TO JOIN THIS CONVERSATION, LETS NOT RESORT TO NAME CALLING OR DISSING EACH OTHER. IF THAT STARTS I'LL SHUT THIS DOWN!!!! Fair enough guys?

IMHO, I think there's a lot we don't and won't know for years. The fact that every major intel agency in the world was telling us he was trying to build WMDs was the big point everyone looks at. I'm sure Mt Charlie has it pretty much right about some of the rest of it. On the WMDs- I still recall seeing pics of convoy after convoy leaving suspected WMD sites and going to Syria. There's been a lot of "low level" WMD support equipment and reportedly some nuke material found. What we haven't found it the ticking bombs we all thought would be there.

In Bush's shoes I don't think I could have made any other decision. If he hadn't gone and we'd have been hit, if your town was hit, what would we be saying now? There was no way to be sure without going and looking ourselves and all Sadam had to do was allow a real inspection to be made. I don't see how we could have taken the risk after 9/11. Since we went the spin and sewage has been added to the point that very few average folks remember what preceded the war.

I hate the war, I can't think of anyone who WANTS war. But after 9/11 I'd rather have it over there than in my back yard. This war will last generations. Even if we walk away today, does anyone really think they won't follow us home? Their way is either we believe exactly what they do, or you die.

[montana_charlie]

I have an opinion on this, but thought politics were not allowed.
Ivan,
It's hard to talk about the Iraq thing without becoming 'political'...because that action has been so heavily politicised. But my post is intended as a look at military strategy...not politics...and Iraq is merely a stratigically useful position to be in possession of while conducting the REAL fight.

I'm referring to the fight which is intended to preclude one religious sect from becoming THE FAITH for all people through 'conversion by the sword'.
That is not 'the Iraq war', it is the War On Terror.

That war was being waged against us for twenty years before we became aware of it. Otherwise, we might have been able to find a way through 'diplomacy' to establish a persence in Iraq (ten years before 'Kuwait') as 'guests' of Saddam. But, we found ourselves with a need to play catch up, and that meant 'no time for diplomacy'. And, by that time, Kuwait and all of those U.N. resolutions were in the past.

It is unfortunate that Iraq has a population that can be terrorized, maimed, and slaughtered. But, if there wasn't anyone there to be 'converted to Democracy', the world's terrorists would not value the area as much as they do now. They might not allow themselves to be lured into fighting there.

That statement puts the Iraqi people in the category of 'bait'. Doesn't sound very nice, does it?
How would that sound if GW made it clear in a public 'explanation' to the American people? How would the 'Arab street' react?

We were able to go into Iraq (without the entire Middle East simply exploding) because of that 'history' of U.N. resolutions. But we NEEDED to get in to that piece of real estate, any way we could.

That's not politics...that's strategy...and Bush CANNOT say it to us, or the world.
For one thing, it would cast us in a 'brutal' light...and (secondly) the terrorists would stop coming.
Instead, they would start attacking everything EXCEPT our forces in Iraq.
With daily suicide attacks and IEDs in London, Paris, and Houston, how long would the world allow us to stay in Bagdad...if each explosion was followed by a Zwahiri video saying, "Get out of Iraq!"?

We can talk about our desire to give the Iraqis a chance at freedom...and it is a goal we would truly like to accomplish.
But it's a secondary goal. We need to be there for our own reasons...and stay for 'the duration'. And that might be generations.
We have to hope that the terrorists see us as just weak enough to defeat - so they will keep trying to - and leave the non-combatant population of the world alone...IMO
CM

[Ivantherussian03]

I think healthy discussion is a good thing, especially if live we in a democracy. Unfortunately, we lead such disjointed lives; people dont have time to fully particpate in this democracy. Then there is the apathy that is in our society.

I dont have axe to grind either way, but I do have questions, and thoughts on the subject.:roll:

[Ivantherussian03]

Here were my initial thoughts last night when I read the post.

The track record of the United States on getting out of other places is not good. Vietnam was almost 20 years, depending on where you get your facts. South korea--oh yeah, were still there now 50 plus years. Germany,yeah there still are troops there. America did leave the Phillipines, Solmola, Bosnia, Panama, Grenada, and some others I am sure. Least we forget, Iraq has oil, and alot of it! Were still in Afganistan and no one said any thing about leaving there. Then think about the hundreds of billions of American dollars spent on those places-think about in those terms, and no body is leaving there-as long as oil is OUR energy source! Then on a more cynister note; is it a accident that Iraq and Afganistan surround Iran, maybe. Now were in the" troop build up phase" that what was said about Vietnam in 65. Get your history books out were going "win their hearts and minds" next, either that or Iran will develop WMD, and well go in after them.:roll:

The whole thing is a dangerous harbinger of the future, where American weapons of war brought to bear conceievably on any corner of the world.

I think were in Iraq and Afganiststan simply because we dont know how else to react. We have to do something otherwise we look or feel weak. The enemy is hiding and waiting, and moving around. Were in these places because these are kinds of wars we can fight. The terrorist are small nearly invisible groups of people, changing, and reinventing their tactics. They never attack the same way twice, and they are willing to wait years to carry out new attacks.

If we did pull out, I do wonder if we weakened the power block of Syria, iraq, and Iran. I think mainly we destabilized the region. Iraq was Iran's enemy. Now Iran can move in on Iraq, and Syria too; they might devide it up. The other side of the coin is that Kurds might be able to establish their own nation, complete with automy, and international recognition. But Syria, Iran, and Turkey, and other have vested interested keeping the Kurds down. I doubt seriously the Iraq as we know will survive with out American resources.

In summing up, I think American forces will be there in Iraq a long time. If for nothing else to keep the region stabalized, and our oil flowing.

You might be right. The American Military Complex has liked having forward bases, building, and maintaining them. I dont think they are conciously planned to have iraq as a base for decades, but why not.

I will go back and read all the posts.

[waksupi]

Something that bugs me about the Mideast. We know where the poppy fields are, but we don't spray them with paraquat, or something similar? Why not? Yes, it will destroy the local economy. Tough. It destroys lives all around the world. Same with the South and Central American drug fields. I want our government out of the business of supporting the drug trade.

[Scrounger]

Something that bugs me about the Mideast. We know where the poppy fields are, but we don't spray them with paraquat, or something similar? Why not? Yes, it will destroy the local economy. Tough. It destroys lives all around the world. Same with the South and Central American drug fields. I want our government out of the business of supporting the drug trade.

That is a really laughable situation as I understand it, Ric. Maybe what I've heard is wrong but... The Afghans were a happy tribe of poppy growers when the Russians, with Afghan government approval, came into the country and started pacifying the hill people, trying to win their hearts and minds. If the Russians were there, we just had to go in and help the faction that wanted them out. Eventually that was achieved and the faction we backed took over the country. But they shut down the poppy industry and had some other social behavior that our more liberalized government couldn't tolerate. So now we're helping the guys we got kicked out back into power so they can keep us supplied with dope... That was the gist of the article I read.

[andrew375]

Except that Iraq was controled by Sunny muslims, who are the arch enemy of Shite muslims and it is the Shites who cause most of the trouble. Iran is a Shea controled nation and the reason why the west supported the Saddam regime was because Iran was scared shitless of diverting its attention from Iraq.

Now nobody is in control of Iraq. Efforts at establishing a government have concetrated on putting Saddam's old enemies in to power and they are mostly Shea and so now Iraq will become politicaly allied to Iran.

[45 2.1]

Something that bugs me about the Mideast. We know where the poppy fields are, but we don't spray them with paraquat, or something similar? Why not? Yes, it will destroy the local economy. Tough. It destroys lives all around the world. Same with the South and Central American drug fields. I want our government out of the business of supporting the drug trade.

Would you spray your crop with that stuff? It seems that they won't either. Lots has been written on this subject.

[monadnock#5]

I don't know who, or why, or under what pretext it will be done, but sooner or later somebody over there is going to nuke their neighbor. Unless the referee can intervene. I don't like it, we don't like it, but like it or not, Uncle Sam is the only referee on the planet for the foreseeable future.

Ken

[robertbank]

It is difficult to respond to a thread like this without your remarks being interpreted as being anti-American. The following isn't. If you can hold off on that train of thought for a minute and just deal with what I think, as just another uninformed member throwing out his observations on what some US Senators regard is the worst foreign policy the U.S. developed since Viet Nam.

First lets deal with this ongoing notion of WMD. The U.N. inspectors were unable to find any before the invasion nor any evidence after that Iraq ever possessed WMD. Your President has even acknowledged there were none yet there are those who cling to this idea they existed. Colin Powell has said there were none. Get over it there were none. You can't truck what wasn't there to Iran or Syria. Why would Iran who had a major hate on for Saddam except anything that would keep Saddam out of hot water?

The U.S. closest allies did not support the war, and strongly recomended against it. Bush at the time refused to listen to the UN and his allies and as much as said damm the torpedoes full steam ahead. Well guess who is now back to the UN looking for help. Mr. Bush and company!

What we had in Iraq was an irritating under achieving PITA 2 cent tin pot dictator who started a war with Iran and despite heavy US assistance managed a draw (Ever wonder why Iran isn't sending America christmas cards). They used to when the Shah was around. The Shah cut off payments to the religous bunch so they tossed the US and Shah out. All of a sudden Iran is a bad guy and Iraq becomes a good guy, and for a few years life goes on. Saddam asks the US Ambasador if the US has any interest in Kuwaits border, she says no, and well the rest is history. We now elevate a PITA dictator to bad guy status.

El Quida (Suni Muslims from Saudi Arabia who have a major hate on for the Saudi regime) attacks the US from Afghanistan bases, Taliban get the boot and Bush manages somehow to convince the American public that our PITA dictator in Iraq is connected to El Quida - which he isn't). All goes well. 100 days later Bush declares victory, much to the surprise of US commanders in Iraq and the toilet begins to flush.

Which more or less brings us to where we are today. We have gone from a PITA dictator running the country to a democratically elected government with no power running nothing. The Kurds in the north want their own country and may get it despite Turkey's objections, a third of the country under the effective control of El Quida who spend most days figuring out how to kill the American soldiers, and the balance of the country held or, to be held by the Shia/Suni group. Two of the three are fighting each other from an old movie and two of the three when they aren't killing each other take time out and join their El Quida brothers in arms to kill American troops - lets face it nobody wants foreign troops on their turf and the Iraqis are no different than any of us would be in that regard.

I mentioned earlier Bush convinced the American public that attacking Iraq was a good thing. Well I suspect he was hoping for an early end to all of this because the American public maybe a lot of things, but dumb isn't one of them and last November the smoke and mirrors being put out by the White House had pretty much disappated and Bush & Co. got a pretty clear message from the American public.

So we now have Bush claiming diplomacy is the way to solve this, something his allies and the U.N. were calling for before the invasion remember.

Iran, Syria, Iraq and the US are planning to sit down and sort who is going to get what and if he is lucky Bush will present his legacy as the guy who figured out how to get out of Iraq - hoping we will all forget who got us into this mess in the first place.

Is Iraq going to go away soon. I doubt it. Are we better off without the PITA dictator running Iraq over what we have now? Are the Iraqi people better off? Is America safer now then it was before? Personally I don't think so on all accounts. I have to remember the same group who are running the show are the same group who installed nuclear detectors on the Canadian border at a cost of over a half a billion dollars and managed to stop several elderly couples travelling to Florida with the system. The couples had nuclear powered pacemakers installed. Now that is taking the War on Terror to it's source.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan where it all started you have four nations from NATO (U.S., U.K., Canada, and Holland), doing all the fighting while the remainder of NATO sits on their collective thumbs. Why, mainly because they have large Muslim populations who can vote and secondly in my view they have no desire to support the US as long as Bush is around. He burned to many bridges at the start of all of this with his conduct and comments.


Take Care

Bob

[shooter2]

Muslims outnumber christians worldwide 8-3. Gianni.

Not true. Current figures are Christians=1750 million and Muslims=1250 million +/-. Unfortunately, Muslims tend to be more fervent and dedicated to their cause than Christians.

[MT Gianni]

Sorry I repeated what I was told without verifing. Gianni.

[montana_charlie]

Are we better off without the PITA dictator running Iraq over what we have now? Are the Iraqi people better off? Is America safer now then it was before? Personally I don't think so on all accounts.
Thanks for your opinion, Bob. I am sure you formed it honestly by taking in information from as many sources as possible. But, our information sources are somewhat limited for one reason or another.

It's my view that we went to Iraq for 'global reasons' which have an impact on our security...more than to manage anything in Iraq. But, while we are there, we have to do things which add to the security of the troops stationed there - and that includes helping Iraqis so they are willing to help us, rather than work against us.

Toward that end, the following things have happened (I am told).
I have pasted it in without editing the content...
CM

-Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their
embassies in Iraq ?
-Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2
million Iraqi people?
-Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated,
364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq ?
-Did you know that Iraq 's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?
-Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
-Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 -
100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry
regiment.
-Did you know that Iraq 's Air Force consists of three operational
squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
-Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
-Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
-Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?
-Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq ?
They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad
stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical
facilities.
-Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
-Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
-Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
-Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
-Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
-Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW! WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?
OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!

Instead of reflecting our accomplishement, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves
two purposes:
It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States, thus minimizing consequent support, and it is intended to discourage American citizens.
---- Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.
THIS WAS A MESSAGE FORWARDED TO ME. I CANNOT GUARUNTEE ITS ACCURACY,
BUT IT IS CERTAINLY FOOD FOR THOUGHT AND FURTHER RESEARCH.

[robertbank]

Iraq is about to be Balkanized, there is little or no civil government, El Quida now operates there when they didn't before the invasion. That, I am aware of from media reports based in Canada, the U.K. & the USA and from assessments made by various elected individuals from the US. who have travelled there.

Then I read what the government that started the war claims to be the situation in Iraq. I listen to what Mr. Cheney your
V.P. has to say which is pretty much incapsulated by the sources you quote.

The two appear to be describing two different realities. I guess only time will tell which correctly describes Iraq. I wish it was, as your sources describe. I fear it isn't.

Your opinion as to the why war with Iraq is as good as any and certainly as valid as any opinions expressed by me. At some point it is my hope that somebody declares victory and brings the troops home. To many young brave men have been sacrificed for what should have been solved through diplomacy and will be, in the end, in any event.

Take Care

Bob

[sundog]

Makes you wonder about the "Fairness Doctrine" so many of the pols (both parties) seem hell bent on having. If there's going to be fairness then the news outlets should be FORCED equal time for the good, the bad, and the ugly. Instead they air the stuff that sells advertising - that is, the more the viewers the higher to price for ad space. Free enterprise at work. Human nature seems to thrive on ghoulish, freaky, and catastrophic. The worse or more outlandish, the more we want it.


I heard an interesting bit of info the other day that put things back into perspective for a little bit. In the first 30 days after the invasion of Iwo Jima (WWII for those who don't know history) we lost more than in the past 5 years in Iraq. Anyone remember how died on 9/11? One battle. My wife's cousin made that landing on the first day and told me about it. Well, the ALL-VOL force is doing what it volunteered to do. Sorry some of them have been maimed and died. But, they volunteered, and I don't see them asking to come home, either individually or in mass. What do they know that the media is not reporting? This whole thing is winnable, but the Iraqis are going to have to do it, and we have to stay until thery are either ready or give up (doesn't look to me like they're giving up). Meanwhile, we've kept most of the bad guys at bay over there. No doubt that at some point they will try to do something here again. To that extent, maybe it's be minimized. Certainly we've bought some time in understanding a war THEY were fighting long before we were. sundog

[Scrounger]

Makes you wonder about the "Fairness Doctrine" so many of the pols (both parties) seem hell bent on having. If there's going to be fairness then the news outlets should be FORCED equal time for the good, the bad, and the ugly. Instead they air the stuff that sells advertising - that is, the more the viewers the higher to price for ad space. Free enterprise at work. Human nature seems to thrive on ghoulish, freaky, and catastrophic. The worse or more outlandish, the more we want it.


I heard an interesting bit of info the other day that put things back into perspective for a little bit. In the first 30 days after the invasion of Iwo Jima (WWII for those who don't know history) we lost more than in the past 5 years in Iraq. Anyone remember how died on 9/11? One battle. My wife's cousin made that landing on the first day and told me about it. Well, the ALL-VOL force is doing what it volunteered to do. Sorry some of them have been maimed and died. But, they volunteered, and I don't see them asking to come home, either individually or in mass. What do they know that the media is not reporting? This whole thing is winnable, but the Iraqis are going to have to do it, and we have to stay until thery are either ready or give up (doesn't look to me like they're giving up). Meanwhile, we've kept most of the bad guys at bay over there. No doubt that at some point they will try to do something here again. To that extent, maybe it's be minimized. Certainly we've bought some time in understanding a war THEY were fighting long before we were. sundog

The thread that won't die... We lost more on Iwo Jima? I'm sure that is a great comfort to those who lost a son/husband/father in Iraq... A war we can win? Yeah, like Viet Nam. We can occupy it and stay there forever fighting insurgents who want us to leave. In 1776 in this country we called them Patriots. Nobody wants to leave? How about that series of shows (don't remember the name) about a company of National Guard from Arkansaw. (I think) Everyone of them was happy to go over there. Six months later everyone except the officers was saying it wasn't possible to change things there and we were just wasting money and blood for NOTHING. Professional soldiers always seem to like wars because they mean promotion and money. Anyone who doesn't have his head in the sand KNOWS that as soon as we leave some pissant little dictator will take over and things will go right back to the way they were with Hussein in charge. Fight them there rather than over here? First off, there would be 5 million guerillas fighting them here on ground we know well, in addition to the military fighters, so fighting them here doesn't really sound that scary, not that it would ever come to that. If it even looked like someone might invade us, we should nuke them out of existance. We're stopping terrorists here by fighting them over there? I fail to see how fighting in Iraq or anywhere else would keep 5 or 10 or 50 terrorists from legally or illegally entering this country and committing terrorists acts. As a matter of fact, it greatly increases the chance of that happening. No, that war or police action or whatever George wants to call it. I call it ego.

[Nrut]

Canadian Blog
www.cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/will-to-win.html (http://www.cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/will-to-win.html)

[montana_charlie]

Professional soldiers always seem to like wars because they mean promotion and money.
How many 'professional soldiers' do you know personally? Have you said that to any of them?
Fight them there rather than over here? First off, there would be 5 million guerillas fighting them here on ground we know well, in addition to the military fighters, so fighting them here doesn't really sound that scary,
No foxhole time under your belt...is there?
CM

[45nut]

I really do wish we could let these threads die off...and go on about CB's and guns and such.

[Scrounger]

How many 'professional soldiers' do you know personally? Have you said that to any of them?

No foxhole time under your belt...is there?
CM

Some.
Yes. (Most of them admitted it was true)
No. (The only thing learned in a foxhole is to keep your bleeping head down. Now if you were ever in a foxhole in combat, tell me your most fervent desire WASN'T that the war would end...)

[montana_charlie]

Now if you were ever in a foxhole in combat...
I was.

I have deleted the rest of my response to let the thread die...
CM

[Ivantherussian03]

Gentlemen and Gentlewomen, I acually think this discussion is valuable. People all over the country should be talking about this and many many other issues in our nations. Instead of doing we do: hiding, or bitching and moaning, turning that mind sucking devise thing people call a tv, or wallowing in the apathy that is so pervasive in our society where politics is concerned. If you upset about something in our great nation, then please write your senator, or write your congressperson.

And another thing, and this is an observation, I cant tell you how to fix the problem, but i can share what I do. You can not get your news from the news media establishment in our country. They have a bias. I get a lot of my news from the Short Wave Radio; and perhaps that sounds crazy, but they broadcast on the Internet now, so it is easy to listen too. Here is when I realized "our news" was flawed. I was listening to a Australian Radio Program. It was shortly after 9/11 , this was said in so many words , " Our sympathies go out to America this is a sad day, but what does America expect; they have been running state sponsered terrorism operrations around the world for years." That was one of our Allies being sympathic to us

There is always more to these things than meets the eye-always. Think about it. Are we being told the news, or someone or a corporate bias on the days events.

Is Iraq in Civil War? Or are terrorist attacking American forces there? We will never know for sure, not in this lifetime anyway.

Ask yourself this, why does America need an enemy. I wonder.:coffee:

[Norton]

I supported the the US and a great part of the free worlds decsion to go to war in Iraq. We gave Sadamm plenty of time to comply the 1991 truce /peace treaty or what ever that was. Clinton bombed and fought with guy for 8 years, so the Gulf war never really ended in my opinion. If he never had the weapons, he should have told somebody.. 'I am just bluffing to look like a tough guy" We all believed he was working on a bomb and still had poisin gas stashed away.. I mean we heard that from 1992 to 2000. So we went in made sure they did not have it , Sadamm and his son's are in the ground. So I want the US to get out of there asap.
I don't want it to be like Germany or Korea either, I don't want us staying for 40 years. This war is more like Algeria or Northern Ireland than Vietnam. A 18 year Marine shot by sniper, A 24 year old Cav trooper killed by RPG, a 36 year old Natl Guardsmen a killed by an IED, female sailor killed by a car bomb, Air Fore helicopter shot down by a shoulder fired SAM civilian contractor gets his head cut off ect.. Then there are the Iraqis civilians a time bomb is set off at a soccer game killing 18 childeren on purpose! Or a rocket fired into a girls school on purpose, kiling dozens of small girls! (Can you think of any terror group that would kill children on purpose to get news coverage?) They want to wear us down so we (middle America) to get sick of hearing about the war and pull out. Make no mistake I want the US out of there..
But I don't want to loose, for if we give Iraq to the bad guys all our dead will have died for nothing.. Second it will embolden them to move with even greater confidence.
So what am I saying ? It is simple put the poltics aside, build up a creditable Iraq army and police and back them up until they are on their feet. Then get out.
It worked in Vietnam, it took from1962 to 1972 to get a somewhat funtioning army in SVN . I am not saying they were great but they hung on in and with US air power they stoped 1972 Easter grand offence. After Watergate the Goverment threw the baby out with the bathwater. They cut SVN off from ammo ,gas and oil to get back at Nixon. Without that short sighted thinking in all likelyhood there might be ARVN troops serving along side ROK troops in Iraq right now. So again , I don't care who did or didn't lie. The fact is we are there now, and we need to win before we pull out. Or it was all for nothing. That's my 2 cents

[dakotashooter2]

What puzzles me is the lack of concern from the european nations. The mideast is a lot closer to their back yard than ours. When you are seeking to expand your territory you generally start close and work your way outward in order to more easily support your forces. Wile the US may appear to be the center of attention it is likely that Europe would see the major wrath of the mideast first. Of course their theory may be if that happens we will bail them out. On the other side of the coin they are more dependent on imported energy than we are and don't want to rock the boat.

[robertbank]

Most of the free world did not support Bush's move on Iraq and wanted the UN inspectors to finish their work. Bush acted unilateraly with the UK providing support along with token Australian participation.

The European countries such as France and Germany have long had interests in Iraq and the middle east and their interests don't happen to be the same as the US. You should also understand France and Germany have large Muslim populations and if you are a politician you listen to your electorate or you get the boot.

There is a lot of history here and it is worth noting this is the first time America was not able to garner backing by it's closest allies for US foreign policy. Many openly questioned it. Something to think about for the future.

The UK is annoucing pull outs out of Iraq now and I would not be surprised to see most if not all of their units out of Iraq by the end of 2008. Before anyone jumps on the UK they are major players in Afghanistan and are increasing their participation in NATO's effort there.

Take Care

Bob