iraq war; what do you think about it??

[cobber]

I definitely feel it was worth it.
snip
Either peace prevails or their very way of life ends!!!

Arguably Afghanistan pushed the Soviet Union over the brink. We should cross our fingers and hope we don't follow in their footsteps.

We've torn that sorry country apart for ten years. Osama's dead. What realistically remains to be done?

The idea of obliterating an entire population to eliminate the threat posed by a handful of people came up in another thread. So we should conduct genocide to thwart terrorism?

Do you really think that would be in America's interest? If so, why not reduce the entire Middle East (except Israel) to a smoldering, irradiated ruin. Just in case.

 

[cobber]

Okay, a question for the anti-war crowd. Rambone, you are certainly included.

Had we followed thier policy for the last 15 years, this scenario would be true. Kuwait would have been steamrolled and annexed by the crime family ruling Iraq, Hussein. A NATO nation, a member of the Islamic states (the name escapes me), and the 11th most wealthy state in the world would have been allowed to fall to the Hussein crime syndicate. Of course, Saddam himself would be in power. Milosevic would have had his way, hundreds of thousand would have been cleansed, and a unified socialist state affirmed. No friend of democracy. Meanwhile, the Taliban would still be in power and Al Queda would still be their welcomed house guest with UBL sitting at the head of the table.

That is quite the resume. Not one I would be shouting from the rooftops.

What in the world do these three things have in common? (And what NATO nation would have fallen to Iraq?? I'm missing something here.)

Ironically another poster here just suggested ethnic cleansing in defense of America. Would that be a good or bad thing?

If we think hard enough, we can find a reason to intervene in every armed conflict around the world. There is always some bad guy we can claim to be deposing in order to establish democracy.

Someday the economy's going to collapse under the weight of national security. Not like it hasn't happened to other nations before America.

 

[Compatriot G]

Here is something to consider about Iraq. While Saddam was in power, he kept the Iranians in check. We didn't have any problems with him while he fought an eight year war with Iran.

In an earlier post, somebody mentioned the invasion of Kuwait. I remember Saddam accusing Kuwait of slant drilling into Iraq and stealing his oil. The rest of the world dismissed this and basically said Saddam was just making this up to have an excuse to invade. According to an article I read in "Soldier of Fortune" in the 90's, when we got into Kuwait, we discovered that the Kuwaitis had been slant drilling into Iraq.

I have to wonder about something. If Saddam was still in power, would he let the Iranians develop nuclear weapons?

I'm not defending Saddam. He was a brutal dictator. His boys were even worse than him. I'm just saying that he was easy enough to contain. Was it necessary to sacrifice the lives of 4000+ U.S. soldiers to get rid of him? We have supported many a dictator as long as they served our purpose.

 

[MilitaryArms]

It was a massive waste of American lives and billions of dollars. We had no business starting a war with Iraq.

The war in Afganistan was justifed but horribly mismanaged. It should have been over with a decade ago.

We're off nation building and bringing "democracy" at the point of a gun to people who never asked for it and don't even want it. If we ever get out of these places another dictator will eventually take over and things will go right back to where they were before we invaded.

We should have bombed Afghanistan further into the stone age after 9/11 and only used Spec Ops and the CIA to kill those responsible for the training camps. Iraq had no hand in 9/11 and our war there was for other reasons.

These two wars will further hasten our demise as a super power. Our day in the sun was slowly ending before 9/11, these two wars sped up our eventual collapse.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Here is something to consider about Iraq. While Saddam was in power, he kept the Iranians in check. We didn't have any problems with him while he fought an eight year war with Iran.

Actually, our wars in the middle east have destabilized the entire region. Much of the unrest we see in the middle east today is directly related to our military actions over the last decade or so. It has never been more unstable in that region and we're only a small spark away from a massive explosion...

 

[repeter1977]

Sure, why not? The UN has no sovereign authority. You can do a search on INGO and find anti UN posts regarding the UN's wish to impose on the US tougher gun laws. I'll bet most INGO members don't mind us thumbing our nose at the UN over that now, do we?

Does anyone find it a wee bit ironic, to say nothing of being hypocritical, that the only nation on earth ever to use nuclear bombs on humankind and a nation that has stockpiled nuclear armaments gets it's undies in a bunch over a country it mistakenly thinks has WMDs?

Oh, yeah. It's different when it comes to us.

Oh, im sure that I can find plenty on anywhere about Anti UN posts. And Im not a super big fan of the UN, as I have pointed out, they are basically useless except for the US. How many years did Bosnia have a genocide going, while the UN was there, until the US finally sent troops and stopped it? Also, if the UN were to try crap here in the US, would I be involved in trying to stop it, of course. I believe that we as a nation NEVER needed the UN.
As for thinking we are getting our undies in a bunch over other countries getting WMDs, I would relate it like this, would you want an angry bully to have a loaded gun at school?

As for the whole WMD question, what do you think we should do? What is your solution? Should we let every country that can develop nukes, chemical and biological weapons do so? I know that I do not have the answer for everything, so I am willing to listen to better ideas.
It was pointed out earlier, that with the transportation, fast moving communications and ability to get around the world so quickly and easily, that maybe that might be a bad idea to let certain countries develop WMDs? After all, its no longer even around the world in 80 days, and with all the mass transit, weapons can spread exponentially. Just watch a couple of those end of the world type movies, or Rise of Planet of the Apes for one more specific. Watch how fast that virus was spread. Or, we could watch history and see how fast the Plague spread through Europe.

As for who are we to decide who has WMDs, I would say we are responsible for the welfare of our own citizens, and this would including making sure that the US is not turned into a glowing parking lot. Or, all the people are wiped out from chemical weapons. As Israel does, I believe we should hold the right for first strike in defense of our nation. After all, if a bully threatens to kill your wife, should you wait until he does so, or should you take actions to make sure your loved ones are not killed?

 

[The Commissioner]

After spending two years in Iraq embedded with the military and doing diplomatic work, I am now convinced that Iraq's military posed no threat whatsoever. To anyone. It was a paper tiger. The idea that a tapped out Iraq government could successfully join the Nuke Club is laughable once you see their infrastructure. Eight years of war with Iran followed by the economic embargo followed by the devastating defeat in Kuwait followed by more economic distress left Iraq in shambles. Trust me on this one boys, I saw it with my own eyes and heard about it from the Iraqis themselves.

As one of the powerful Sheikh's in Anbar told us, "You Americans must remember that Iraqis are not ruled by reason...they are ruled by force." In other words, our attempt to turn tribal and sectarian Iraq into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East was an exercise in failure. Yes, they held elections. Visiting polling places and watching Iraqis dip their fingers in the dye to denote casting a ballot was one of the most exciting and proudest days of my life. And yet the guy whose party came in second place continues to be Prime Minister and the guy who came in first is on the outside looking in. Is that democracy?

Iraq will inevitably slide back into dictatorship because that is what many Iraqis want. Not a brutal, genocidal, and overtly selfish dictatorship like Saddam's, but one like the wealthy Gulf states have. Think 'benevolent' dictator. If Saddam had not wasted the country's wealth on money-is-no-object palaces and a military way out of proportion to the threat, he'd still be alive.

Iraq has potential for tremendous wealth from hydrocarbon exports. The country is floating on a sea of oil and gas. It has many educated people and excellent businessmen. Expatriate Iraqis with loads of money are waiting for stability to return. With the right leadership, the place could look like Dubai or Kuwait City. But first the battle for leadership has to be fought and it's going to be bloody.

What did the US gain by going in? Well, if we ever have to go back and I think we will eventually, we'll know the place much better. We gave them the opportunity to try a different form of government. But was it worth all the blood and treasure we invested? No way.

 

[teddy12b]

Okay, a question for the anti-war crowd. Rambone, you are certainly included.

Had we followed thier policy for the last 15 years, this scenario would be true. Kuwait would have been steamrolled and annexed by the crime family ruling Iraq, Hussein. A NATO nation, a member of the Islamic states (the name escapes me), and the 11th most wealthy state in the world would have been allowed to fall to the Hussein crime syndicate. Of course, Saddam himself would be in power. Milosevic would have had his way, hundreds of thousand would have been cleansed, and a unified socialist state affirmed. No friend of democracy. Meanwhile, the Taliban would still be in power and Al Queda would still be their welcomed house guest with UBL sitting at the head of the table.

That is quite the resume. Not one I would be shouting from the rooftops.

You're basing this statement with the assumption that none of the neighboring countires would have stepped in. As unlikely as it would have been it's still an option. You're also taking a little bit of a preachy tone and forgetting that we do leave most of the world alone. Look up what happen in Africa or some of the Kony 2012 videos. There's plenty of places on earth that we completely ignore and don't think twice about because we have no economic interest there (oil).

 

[teddy12b]

As for the whole WMD question, what do you think we should do? What is your solution? Should we let every country that can develop nukes, chemical and biological weapons do so? I know that I do not have the answer for everything, so I am willing to listen to better ideas.

You're making an assumption that these countries develop their own weapons from scratch. Saddam Hussein was trained at Fort Leonard Wood Missouri on chemical weapons and unless I'm mistaken the ones he used against his own people were made in the USA.

We have a foreign policy of being the worlds drama queen and that needs to end. The cost to our country in American lives is not worth it.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Here is something to consider about Iraq. While Saddam was in power, he kept the Iranians in check. We didn't have any problems with him while he fought an eight year war with Iran.

In an earlier post, somebody mentioned the invasion of Kuwait. I remember Saddam accusing Kuwait of slant drilling into Iraq and stealing his oil. The rest of the world dismissed this and basically said Saddam was just making this up to have an excuse to invade. According to an article I read in "Soldier of Fortune" in the 90's, when we got into Kuwait, we discovered that the Kuwaitis had been slant drilling into Iraq.

I have to wonder about something. If Saddam was still in power, would he let the Iranians develop nuclear weapons?

I'm not defending Saddam. He was a brutal dictator. His boys were even worse than him. I'm just saying that he was easy enough to contain. Was it necessary to sacrifice the lives of 4000+ U.S. soldiers to get rid of him? We have supported many a dictator as long as they served our purpose.

Based on personal experience, I would take any article published in Soldier of Fortune with a heavy dose of salt.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Japan and Germany already had significant experience with parliamentary government and relatively open political systems before the war. And I would think we actually understood the German system pretty well, if not also the Japanese.

The Japanese prior to and during WWII were run by the military with the Emperor as a figurehead. Iraq had the same sort of "representative government" under the Husseins. The difference between the two situations was that there was a relatively low-level of resistance (but there was some) in Japan during their reconstruction, but there was an active rebellion in Iraq, materially aided by the Syrians and Iranians, from the time that combat operations ceased in Iraq. It still took us 20 years to get the Japanese re-acculturated, and they weren't dealing with ethnic and sectarian issues as the Iraqis have been. It takes time to work through such issues and it requires the peace to be kept, which hasn't been accomplished in Iraq.

But why would we ever suppose in a century of Sundays that we could install anything approaching a democratic system in Iraq, and especially in Afghanistan?

We'd better reserve judgment on the Arab Spring for now. We got rid of centralized authoritarian regimes, but we could end up with radical Islamic republics in their place, unless we're willing to put more boots on the ground and 'teach them to choose good men' like Woody Wilson said of the Mexicans. (US intervention in Mexico was hardly a shining success.)

I agree that "The Arab Spring" isn't working out in our favor, which is a partial result of our not being able to accomplish the purposes of "nation-building" in Iraq. Also, the Muslim Brotherhood, because of US policies under the last two Administrations (Bush is no more blameless than Obama in this) has been able to take over these uprisings - because any sufficiently fanatical and organized group can take over a general movement, as has been proven over and over, first in Russia in 1917, then in Germany in the 30s, then in the Democrat Party in the 1980s and 90s.


As for fighting our battles on foreign soil, just what battle were we fighting in Iraq? Is it possible having our forces everywhere makes them more attractive targets? When we had troops in Lebanon, they were a target for Hezbollah. When is the last time Hezbollah mounted a terror attack on the US? Having US troops in Saudi was obviously productive of a great deal of hostility.

We were preventing Iraq from developing and disseminating WMD to terror groups with which it was allied (Al Qaeda being one) and preventing them from committing genocide against the Kurds, as well as removing a brutal regime which was terrorizing its own people.

I frankly don't believe Bush-Cheney's prevarications that Al Qaeda attacked us simply because they hate our way of life. I don't think most people around the world hate Americans at all. I think they hate our government and what it does. Those are two different things.

If you don't believe Bush-Cheney's "prevarications", check out Osama Bin Laden's and Al Qaeda's pronouncements about us and our way of life. Check out the goals of Wahabist Islam. It doesn't take a majority of the world's Islamics wanting to extinguish our freedoms and lifestyle, only a largish minority willing to commit money and bodies to such a struggle.

Did we really need to have troops in Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda, or at least to protect the US? It seems that these guys were on our radar for years before 9/11, but our 'watchdogs' missed the clues.

We used the warring factions opposed to the Taliban to oust them and that's where we should have stopped. Afghanistan is a far different proposition from Iraq in terms of the people being ready for a representative government.

If we moved back to a Washingtonian view of American diplomacy, we wouldn't be getting into these splendid little wars all the time (at least the British Empire managed to do it on the cheap for quite a while).

In Washington's day, we were 30 days sailing from most of our enemies. Today we're 30 minutes or less (in terms of ability to deliver mass destruction on our shores).

Are we really prepared to occupy the world to defend our nation?

See comments above.

 

[cobber]

See comments above.

The Japanese prior to and during WWII were run by the military with the Emperor as a figurehead.

Not a figurehead, but a deity. He's a figurehead now. The military had an increasing hand in running the country, but in the early 20th century Japan had a parliamentary government. And now they have a parliamentary government. What exactly did we teach the Japanese?

Iraq had the same sort of "representative government" under the Husseins. The difference between the two situations was that there was a relatively low-level of resistance (but there was some) in Japan during their reconstruction, but there was an active rebellion in Iraq, materially aided by the Syrians and Iranians, from the time that combat operations ceased in Iraq. It still took us 20 years to get the Japanese re-acculturated, and they weren't dealing with ethnic and sectarian issues as the Iraqis have been. It takes time to work through such issues and it requires the peace to be kept, which hasn't been accomplished in Iraq.

Even assuming the two countries were relatively close in any meaningful way, Japan attacked us.

The Japanese had plenty of ethnic issues: they were flaming racists in 1945. This Yamato race ideology, which persists, enabled them to view their expansionism as a justifiable mandate from heaven, something like a Japanese 'manifest destiny'.

I agree that "The Arab Spring" isn't working out in our favor, which is a partial result of our not being able to accomplish the purposes of "nation-building" in Iraq.

No, the lesson we should take here is that Iraqi nation-building was doomed to failure. The Arab Spring won't turn out the way Americans would like it to. It's not our business how other people run their countries.

Also, the Muslim Brotherhood, because of US policies under the last two Administrations (Bush is no more blameless than Obama in this) has been able to take over these uprisings - because any sufficiently fanatical and organized group can take over a general movement, as has been proven over and over, first in Russia in 1917, then in Germany in the 30s, then in the Democrat Party in the 1980s and 90s.

I'm not following your comment on the Democrat Party. You mean in the US? Okay, we're not on the same planet on this one.

So we should be intervening in domestic political movements in the Arab World to steer these nations the way we want them to go?

We were preventing Iraq from developing and disseminating WMD to terror groups with which it was allied (Al Qaeda being one) and preventing them from committing genocide against the Kurds, as well as removing a brutal regime which was terrorizing its own people.

We did not intervene when Saddam conducted genocide against the Kurds in the 1980s, but in 2003 we were intervening on their behalf? George the First certainly abandoned the Kurds in the wake of Gulf War I.

Re WMDs, bosh. Iran and the DPRK are much closer to developing nukes and delivery systems than the Iraqis were. So why didn't we send in the troops to install democracy in Tehran and Pyongyang?

If you don't believe Bush-Cheney's "prevarications", check out Osama Bin Laden's and Al Qaeda's pronouncements about us and our way of life. Check out the goals of Wahabist Islam. It doesn't take a majority of the world's Islamics wanting to extinguish our freedoms and lifestyle, only a largish minority willing to commit money and bodies to such a struggle.

If there is a large number of fanatic Muslims hating the American people simply for who we are, and wanting to take us out by any means, I don't see that the demi-wars in Iraq and Afghanistan improved the odds in our favor much. If the situation is that dismal, we probably need to build a very high wall.

We used the warring factions opposed to the Taliban to oust them and that's where we should have stopped. Afghanistan is a far different proposition from Iraq in terms of the people being ready for a representative government.

You are far more sanguine about this than I am.

My question remains, what gives America the right to try to nation-build in either of those countries? What mission did we have there, other than to defeat our enemies.

We have tried for many years to nation-build in Latin America. How has that turned out?

In Washington's day, we were 30 days sailing from most of our enemies. Today we're 30 minutes or less (in terms of ability to deliver mass destruction on our shores).

30 minutes or less? We're talking ICBMs I presume. Any nation that can deliver an ICBM has a home address that we know. Which country do you think is going to lob their nuclear arsenal at us, and how does having troops in Afghanistan prevent this?

How does having foreign bases prevent a conventional or nuclear attack on US soil?

We had plenty of bases around the world pre-9/11; we also had plenty of intel about Al Qaeda. How do more bases and more commitments and more nation-building protect us against a small group of fanatic stateless terrorists?



A wise man is reputed to have said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. When's the next war/nation-building experiment set to begin?

​

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I could quote that whole vast mess again, but to what end. We disagree about a number of things, but not about nation-building. If we're not going to see a military conquest through to a favorable end, we should accomplish our immediate military/political objectives and leave.

But if you think pulling back to our national boundaries will keep us safe, you're whistling in the wind.

 

[teddy12b]

But if you think pulling back to our national boundaries will keep us safe, you're whistling in the wind.

I disagree with this line of thought every time I see which is usually when people are argueing about Ron Paul's desire to brign the troops home. I struggle to understand how bring home every navy seal, every green beret, every tank, every fighter jet, every piece of artillery, every airborn grunt, every sniper, every attack helicopter, and so on....... How does bringing all of that home make us less safe? I'm of the opinion that have all our troops home spread out throughout our own country makes us that much more safe and secure at home. Imagine a world where servicemen and women got to spend time with their families and what that would do to the military divorce and suicide rates.

 

[BE Mike]

I disagree with this line of thought every time I see which is usually when people are argueing about Ron Paul's desire to brign the troops home. I struggle to understand how bring home every navy seal, every green beret, every tank, every fighter jet, every piece of artillery, every airborn grunt, every sniper, every attack helicopter, and so on....... How does bringing all of that home make us less safe? I'm of the opinion that have all our troops home spread out throughout our own country makes us that much more safe and secure at home. Imagine a world where servicemen and women got to spend time with their families and what that would do to the military divorce and suicide rates.

Killing terrorists overseas is preferable to having them come over here. Our troops are overseas for a variety of reasons besides combat. One is to protect American interests and citizens abroad and another is to extend our influence in the world. I actually believe that as flawed as we are as a country, our freedoms and way of life are worth sharing with the world. Isolationism doesn't work. If it did, the Great Wall of China wouldn't just be a tourist attraction today and kids in China's schools wouldn't be studying English.

 

[repeter1977]

You're making an assumption that these countries develop their own weapons from scratch. Saddam Hussein was trained at Fort Leonard Wood Missouri on chemical weapons and unless I'm mistaken the ones he used against his own people were made in the USA.

We have a foreign policy of being the worlds drama queen and that needs to end. The cost to our country in American lives is not worth it.

Couple quick questions, why would he have trained at Leonard Wood, when the Chemical School was not there until after 2000??? This is the first of any information that I have heard about Saddam getting chemical weapons from the US, since we don't use any, wonder where we would get it?
Also, I asked what your plan was for what we should with foreign countries threatening us?
As I said about the plans, I might not know the answer for everything, but I believe putting our brush fires right away is WAY better then waiting for it to become a forest fire outside your house, and then trying to fight it with a garden hose.
And the US being Drama Queens, im pretty sure much of the world is happy that we have done that in more then a couple places. Europe (WWII), Bosnia, Japan, South Korea... Im sure I can continue, but point being made, most places in the world WANT the US troops around. We stabilize an area, we bring our money and help their economy. We rebuild up the country and infrastructure, that is why more countries want US there then any other country coming to help them.

 

[repeter1977]

Killing terrorists overseas is preferable to having them come over here. Our troops are overseas for a variety of reasons besides combat. One is to protect American interests and citizens abroad and another is to extend our influence in the world. I actually believe that as flawed as we are as a country, our freedoms and way of life are worth sharing with the world. Isolationism doesn't work. If it did, the Great Wall of China wouldn't just be a tourist attraction today and kids in China's schools wouldn't be studying English.

They say that you can tell the greatness of a Nation based off of how many people are fleeing to a country, versus how many are fleeing from it. Since the US does not have any mass exodus of people fleeing, and we have tons of people wanting asylum here, I believe we are doing a pretty bang up job. Might not be the best system, but there still has not been one better yet

 

[cobber]

we bring our money and help their economy

BINGO!

Our troops are overseas for a variety of reasons besides combat. One is to protect American interests and citizens abroad and another is to extend our influence in the world.

So when I go to Paris to see the Eiffel Tower I can expect US troops to protect me, or is that properly the job of the French authorities? Or US troops to protect, say, Microsoft offices in Italy?

How about Russian troops in the US to protect Russian citizens or interests here?


Troops to extend our influence? How about we leave influence-extending to the brilliance of American freedoms, treaty-making, international conferences, the appeal of American universities to foreign students, the US Chamber of Commerce, trade delegations, and the NBA? Don't see a role for armed forces there...

 

[rambone]

Okay, a question for the anti-war crowd. Rambone, you are certainly included.

Had we followed thier policy for the last 15 years, this scenario would be true. Kuwait would have been steamrolled and annexed by the crime family ruling Iraq, Hussein. A NATO nation, a member of the Islamic states (the name escapes me), and the 11th most wealthy state in the world would have been allowed to fall to the Hussein crime syndicate. Of course, Saddam himself would be in power. Milosevic would have had his way, hundreds of thousand would have been cleansed, and a unified socialist state affirmed. No friend of democracy. Meanwhile, the Taliban would still be in power and Al Queda would still be their welcomed house guest with UBL sitting at the head of the table.

That is quite the resume. Not one I would be shouting from the rooftops.

The responsibility for all of these hypothetical scenarios doesn't fall at my feet. My resume isn't represented by the world's villains. I'm not to blame when a guy in the next town over beats his wife.

Dictators gonna dictate. I'd like to see America remain solvent and not become a dictatorship itself.

If Americans want a war, then let it be declared by the U.S. Congress. Let the enemy be named and the mission be specific. Keep the power in the hands of the people, via their representatives, where it belongs.

If Americans want to spread "foreign aid" and commence "nation building," then let it be through voluntary donations and voluntary service.

If I kept us out of the last 15 years of foreign wars, would also I get credit for saving the United States Trillions of dollars, saving American lives, containing the Military Industrial Complex, shrinking the bullseye on America's back, possibly preventing 9/11, and hindering the imperial power of the presidency? Because I'd make that trade. We've lost more than we've gained in the last 15 years.

 

[Grunt]

We should have won the war in 1991. During Desert Storm my unit got well behind the republican guard. We were 150 miles from Baghdad and we (us peons) wanted to go take the country down because we didn't want to come back later to finish something that could be finished now. It was that pansy liberal Colon Powell's fault that we didn't finish it.