Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: Answers to Common and Uncommon Questions About the War in Iraq.

  1. #1

    Answers to Common and Uncommon Questions About the War in Iraq.

    As most of you know, I have been an ardent supporter of the War in Iraq since it was launched in March of 2003, since then a storm of debate has cast what I've seen as a 'partisan smokescreen' over the reality of the conflict. Now don't get me wrong, I am as opinionated and slanted as most of you are when it comes to politics, but I intend to answer every major question that my opposition can pose and present to all the crucial immovable reason why Coalition forces should have gone into Iraq, and why these forces must remain in Iraq until at least a crucial set of objectives is met. I intend not for this topic to turn into a scene of divisive name calling and dogmatic ranting, I intend only for this topic to give all who question whether this war was worth the price, in blood, money, and steel, or whether this war is feasibly winnable an answer, to every last question they pose. This topic will be formatted in question and answer form, I will bold the questions and list the answers below, any other questions I may have missed or not listed for a reason I will be glad to answer.

    What Honestly Makes You Think the Deaths of Nearly 3,000 Coalition Soldiers, 40,000 Iraqis, and the Violent Situation Now Were Worth the Price Payed?

    To answer this question we must go deep into the twenty four years Iraq was under the rule of Saddam Hussein, and the tainted history America and the Western Nations have had in Iraq. To put it as short as possible by my standards, the brutal acts of war and genocide by the Hussein regime, and the broken promises of regime overthrow that many Iraqis payed for in blood. The dictatorship running Iraq would slaughter hundreds of thousands of their own people in organized genocide campaigns, and hundreds of thousands more as a result of their invasion of three separate nations. A regime overthrow was needed, when the Kurds tried, they were brutally suppressed and thousands slaughtered, when many Shiites tried following the First Gulf War, thousands more were slaughtered. Saddam Hussein was smart enough to keep his armies well equipped with more modern technologies than some of his neighboring nations, and much more so than his many enemies within Iraq. America under President Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in his war effort against the new Iranian regime under Ayatollah Khomeini, and under the administration of President Bill Clinton devastating sanctions were place on Iraq and a bombing campaign launched in 1998 following Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. Under the four separate administrations preceding the Bush administration, the regime that committed acts of war and genocide not seen since Pol Pot in Cambodia was allowed to exist and grow. There was going to be no diplomatic end to the violence that the Ba'athist regime pursued even up until the invasion. There will always be a price to pay in any war effort, but it must not be this that keeps us from taking action when we know it is the right thing to be done, the action that should have been taken over a decade ago, the action that was never taken and innocent people payed the price, their memories are seldom reflected on television or in the newspapers, but that does not make them ghosts of the past, because the same acts of cruelty were being committed up until the time we invaded. While I am in agreement in that this war diverted resources away from Afghanistan ,something had to be done. And men like Saddam Hussein do not relinquish power through words alone, and if not at that time, then when? The drums of wartime spirit were beating less and less as the memories of September 11, 2001 faded into the distance. Actions, especially those with great risk but noble principle define history, and it was this type of action that needed to be pursued.

    What Was the Real Reason the Bush Administration Pushed for War in Iraq? There Were No Weapons of Mass Destruction that Were of Any Significant Value.

    It's really simple, the Bush Administration was intent on taking down the regime in Iraq as soon as it came into power. The Republican Party campaigned for regime change as the U.S policy in Iraq during the 2000 elections, only two years earlier, President Bill Clinton signed into law a bill known as the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that switched the U.S policy in Iraq to regime change. The specifics of the bill supported giving "monetary assistance" to internal opposition groups to Saddam Hussein. But these measures have been taken by other powerful nations as a precursor to direct intervention; America's role in Vietnam was started off slowly and gradually escalated, then rapidly reduced. "Military advisors" were the key in Vietnam as a precursor to war. To put it simply, this war was over five years in the making as I see it. President Clinton saw what a thorn Saddam had become to UN and US policy as did President Bush. Saddam's autocratic rule was nothing short of a bloodbath and the fact the US allowed the man to rule at a time when he had more blood on his hands than any other ruler contradicted America's age old motto of being the leader of the free world. Bush most likely wanted to finish the job his father never finished and brighten both of their legacies as well as be remembered as a controversial president but one that delivered on their promises of democracy, such as President Harry Truman. Bush wanted a big and somewhat feasible reason that would catch the eye of the UN and get them to shut up for awhile as well as one that appeared as an "imminent threat" to America and the world. The reality was, George Tenet, former director of the CIA had a history of incompetence since he was nominated for the post in 1997, and the intelligence turned out to be poor, eliminating a major reason or the most recognized one for war. The reasons listed for the war were to get initial public approval, the insurgency proved tougher than expected and was fought throughout 2003, 2004 and most of 2005, and the major concern now is the sectarian violence in and surrounding Baghdad.

    Saddam Hussein Could Not Have Possibly Been As Bad As You Make Him Out to Be, Prove That He Was As "Ruthless" As You Say.

    To start, let's talk about what Saddam Hussein and his relative and partner in crime, Ali Hussein al-Majhid did to their own people, outside wars exempt for the moment. In 1986 the Hussein regime initiated a policy of ethnic cleansing and 'Arabization' against the Kurdish population of Iraq known as the al-Anfal Campaign. According to the sources contained in the Wikipedia article on the al-Anfal Campaign, around 182,000 civilians were executed by the regime, around 5,000 in the infamous Halabja chemical weapons attack in 1988, nearly 75% of Kurdish villages were wiped out and thousands of buildings including mosques, hospitals, churches, and schools were destroyed. Following the First Gulf War, the BBC reported nearly 30,000 were ruthlessly suppressed when uprisings threatened the stability of the nation.

    The Fedayeen Saddam was created in 1995, following years of devastating sanctions as a right-wing paramilitary organization of Hussein loyalists, these forces were involved in the killings, kidnappings, and imprisonment of thousands of Iraqis. Outside of Iraq, Saddam stuck true to his mostly Fascist politics and pursued wars for expansion and defense in Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. The Iran-Iraq War, started by Saddam in 1980 cost the lives of anywhere from 900,000 to 1.6 million people, over 100,000 Iranian soldiers dying as a result of the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqis. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait and during the Coalition response it invaded Saudi Arabia where Iraqi troops mounted stiff resistance at al-Khafji. Following Saddam's swift defeat he engaged in a quick 'scorched earth tactic' of lighting Kuwaiti oil wells ablaze and pumping crude oil into the Gulf. It is estimated by the Wikipedia article on this war that anywhere from 25,000 to 100,000 of Saddam's soldiers were killed during the Gulf War. Saddam's reputation for ruthlessness and bloodshed was only satisfied by the refusal of the nations with the power to oust him to act. It is tough for most to comprehend 1,000 bodies strewn across the earth, why would anyone be able to comprehend nearly 2 million? It is this reason why bringing up the body count of one tyrant does little to sway the opinions of anyone, but a picture speaks a thousand words I suppose so here is one of the Halabja poison gas attack. (Warning: Graphic)

    http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/images/si/halabja1.jpg

    As Far as I Have Seen, the 'Progress' In Iraq Has Been Insignificant, What Have We Accomplished?

    I have taken the liberty of listing the progress of the rebuilding efforts in Iraq in terms of politically, militarily, and the infrastructure. Please note the source is the conservative slanted National Review, but the sources provided within the article, Cyber Cast News exempt are credible, including one from the NY Times. This is the new progress as of July 25, 2006.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...NiMGEzNjNjM2E=

    Infrastructure
    -A $70,000,000 investment by a company in an Iraqi cement plant.
    -USAID providing clean water to Kirkuk residents.
    -Completed 60 megawatt Power Plant in Samawah, Iraq.
    -U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completes a major power plant in Basra, Iraq.
    -Completion of a secondary school in Nineveh, Iraq.
    -"The 900,000 residents of Erbil now have a first-rate maternity and pediatrics hospital."
    -Paved roads through parts of Najaf complete.
    -Over $22 Billion spent by U.S on rebuilding Iraq so far.
    -Al Ahnaf Nahia now has a new government building.
    -Iraq's border with Syria now more secure with construction of 23 border forts. (http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/r...con071706.html)
    Political
    -After calls for unity by Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraq’s largest Sunni bloc (IAF) has ended its legislative boycott.
    -Muthanna Province completely controlled by Iraqi Army.
    -One-fifth of the Diyala Province now under Iraqi Army control.
    -The number of tips from Iraqis continues to grow.
    -New York Times; Baghdad violence "ebbed significantly".
    Military
    -Iraqi troops captured the number-2 man in the Islamic Army terrorist group.
    -In Baghdad, Iraqi troops captured two top Shiite militia leaders, and killed or wounded between 30 and 40 during the raid.
    -In Babil, Iraqi security forces captured a leader of anti-Iraqi forces.
    -Based on tips from Iraqis, Iraqi security forces captured an entire anti-Iraqi cell during a raid in Mosul.
    -A senior insurgent leader was captured in Baqubah. The wanted man was responsible for terrorist activity throughout the middle Euphrates region.
    -In Baghdad, a top al Qaeda leader was captured by Coalition forces.
    -In another raid, Iraqi security forces captured a top insurgent leader, responsible for IED attacks, and the murder of Iraqi civilians.

    Why Should We Stay in Iraq if it is Still Such a Violent Nation? If Not an Immediate Withdrawal Then At Least Give Us a Timetable For One.

    Because it is necessary to leave Iraq with a better overall security situation than we have in Baghdad and its surrounding areas at the present time. Its military needs to be well equipped, more numerous, and better trained and disciplined when we leave Iraq so that the Iraqi government can handle the security situation in their own country. The second part is the reconstruction, of which over 22 billion U.S dollars has already been spent on completing, we must rebuild what we destroyed and then some to give the civilians in Iraq a better standard of living, I would suggest a Socialist economy for the time being but whatever works best for them will be used. A timetable for troop withdrawal many seem to think will give leaders a deadline of which they can get things done, this is not so. In Somalia we decided on a series of dates for troop withdrawal following the costly Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia today is in ruins, it didn't have to end that way, none of our interventions had to end that way. We must see this war through so that our soldiers will not end up fighting the same enemy again because our politicians didn't have the steel to see through what they started. A pullout from Iraq in simple terms means a catastrophe, whereas the violence in Iraq currently is contained within Baghdad and its surrounding towns and cities within a forty mile perimeter, the civil war will explode across the nation as the IA is not yet logistically prepared to deal with an insurgency force of this tenacity just yet, in the long term should Iraq succeed the Arab world will be able to boast their first democracy (indirect one) that hasn't been involved in a war with an outside nation in quite some time. The U.S will have for its interests an American armed and trained Arab ally in the region whose army has first hand combat experience and quality training. To the benefit of the Iraqi people they would have new facilities and a powerful nation they can be proud of and have a voice in running. That is what is at stake now, either Iraq will end up being a democracy that can hold itself together, or a fractured nation plagued by more war, the latter would happen in the case of a premature withdrawal.

    Stop Looking At This War Through Rosy Colored Glasses, Iraq Won't Turn Out to be Anything More than Another Autocracy. What Do You Honestly Think Is Making This Occupation of Iraq So Difficult? We Didn't Have to Deal With the Same Crap in Japan.

    What is making a temporary occupation of Iraq so difficult is a combination of the acts of a deceased terror mastermind, the historically anti-government feelings of many in Eastern Iraq, and Iraq's history of being the battlefield for ambitious emperors and iron fisted tyrants. Japan had never been conquered before in it's 4,000 year history of fielding some sort of an army, its people were swayed and shaped by Confucian conservatism and were taught obedience to authority for centuries, that is why someone like Douglas MacArthur was so successful at rebuilding Japan. Iraq's history is much different, a lot more blood has been spilled on Iraqi soil than Japanese soil, Iraq has been conquered by many. The Sassanian Empire (2nd Persian), the Islamic Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Mongolian Empire (devastated Iraq in 1258), and the British Empire all controlled Iraq at one point or another for much of its history. The Iraqi government system was set up much like the British one but was far from sovereign, their first 20th Century Prime Minister was Abd ar-Rahman al-Haydari al-Kaylani, he was the first in a short lived series of leaders loyal to the British government. The strongmen who ruled Iraq, whether it was Qassim or Hussein, ruled with absolute power, Hussein being recognized as by far the most brutal. The other part of this explanation is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's legacy of propagating civil war through senseless acts of violence, the mosque bombing in Samarra in February was by far his most recognized attempt to ignite sectarian violence. Zarqawi was a man so incredibly ruthless that he met his demise due to a disillusioned al-Qaeda in Iraq operative, him along with many others grew disgusted at the hideous nature of Zarqawi's crimes, whether it was attacking civilians, decapitating civilians, or bombing places of worship, he was the one who ignited all of this sectarian violence in and around Baghdad, and as Zarqawi met his end, so can the violence he created, this situation will take time to fix, patience with persistence is what is needed. Lastly Iraqis are an ethnically and religiously diverse people, but divided as many of them may seem now they all shared the feelings of being betrayed by nations like America who promised an end to Saddam's rule, they feel their nation has been the welcome mat for every empire that needs to grab territory, the reaction will be much different and more hostile than in historically nationalist and obedient nations like Japan.

    You Seem to Be So Confident that the Republicans Are Always Right, Why Don't You Show How Their Opposition Is Wrong For a Change?

    To start, I have very little confidence in the knowledge of our lawmakers in Congress, Republican or Democrat. Very few of them seem to know much at all about the Middle East or the conflicts they support, they just know where they stand for or against it. That part aside, I will give an excerpt from an older debate I had on Sons of 408 some of it is revised or edited:

    "Iraq is a much different, much more diverse type of occupation, it is far from a quagmire, almost every major problem the Democrats have decided to point out in the past ends up fixed. They once cited the desertions in the Iraqi Army, now the Iraqi Army is 270,000 trained and equipped strong. They no longer run, they do not excuse, and they fight ruthlessly in the face of terrorism. Then it was all about the electricity being below pre-war levels, now that is almost over with because of the massive reconstruction efforts with two new power plants being completed this week, Multi-National Force Iraq reporting it exceeds pre-war levels today (August 5). Then it was all about the oil production being too low and being sabotaged by insurgents, now the BBC reports the oil production is on pace to break pre-war levels of production. Steady progress is made every single day, the sectarian violence has cooled off for the moment and insurgent safe houses are being found and eliminated every day, just because CNN and Time don't report these things, doesn't make them any less true."

    In short, the Democrats are playing an age old game of politics to make voters believe that Iraq is one big scene of chaos, with no specifics or progress made, the reality of the situation is much different as I believe I've already shown in the previous answers. Like I said earlier, the Republican lawmakers disgust me as well in many cases because they are the ones who give those with an anti-war stance the idea the even neo-conservatives like me see Iraq as a great place, we don't. Our lawmakers, Democrat and Republican continue to delude themselves about what is actually happening, most politicians seem to grasp what is at stake, but they don't seem to know how to proceed in either direction without making a 'cut & run' or a 'stay the course' speech. It is in these speeches that most of our politicians like to fool the voters into thinking Iraq is all going well, or that Iraq is like a fiery dungeon in the seventh layer of hell. Think for yourself and read what is actually happening in Iraq, don't take just my word or anyone elses as the total truth, we are all biased in one way or another.

    Books About Iraq and the Muslim World I Highly Recommend:

    Arabs At War: A Military History by Kenneth Pollack
    Inside the Resistance: The Iraqi Insurgency and the Future of the Middle East by Zaki Chehab
    My Jihad by Aukai Collins
    Treachery by Bill Gertz
    Afghanistan: A Modern History by Angelo Rasanayagam
    American Soldier: General Tommy Franks by Gen. Tommy Franks

    Recent News Update on Baghdad Violence 8/16/06:

    http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?op...2197&Itemid=18
    Iraqi and Coalition Forces 'Squelch' Violence in Baghadad District

    The New York Times reported 7 dead in a car bomb attack in a Shi'a district of Baghdad.

  2. #2
    I posted this on another political website and my own website, let me know what you think.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,967
    Isn't the 'war' in Iraq for the most part over and has been over for a while?

    Are US troops essentially garrisoned in Iraq? There's no real battles being fought. No ground being taken or lost. Seems to me US troops are only there patrolling to prevent Muslim ethnic cleansing in various areas and neighborhoods.

    And isn't Bush keeping forces in Iraq when they're not really needed there because it keeps the Democrats divided since Democrats don't know their a-double-s from a hole in the ground?

    Did the US fail to understand Muslim willingness to murder each other in the name of Allah by blowing up women and babies in Mosques, hospitals, schools, and market places?

  4. #4
    Isn't the 'war' in Iraq for the most part over and has been over for a while?

    No not necessarily, the confrontation of insurgents, death squads, and sectarian militias I would imagine is all part of the 'war'.

    Are US troops essentially garrisoned in Iraq? There's no real battles being fought. No ground being taken or lost. Seems to me US troops are only there patrolling to prevent Muslim ethnic cleansing in various areas and neighborhoods.

    Right now U.S troops are there primarily for reconstruction, training and arming Iraqi Security Forces, and combatting insurgent groups. Most of the troops in Baghdad doing the dirty work fighting insurgents are Iraqi now, as are most of the troops in Iraq.

    And isn't Bush keeping forces in Iraq when they're not really needed there because it keeps the Democrats divided since Democrats don't know their a-double-s from a hole in the ground?

    They are very much needed at the moment, I explained why in the first post.

    Did the US fail to understand Muslim willingness to murder each other in the name of Allah by blowing up women and babies in Mosques, hospitals, schools, and market places?

    No we always understood the motives of the extremists in the Muslim world, it just didn't seem likely at the time that we would be combatting those extremists in a previously autocratic and secular nation.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,356
    Did the US fail to understand Muslim willingness to murder each other in the name of Allah by blowing up women and babies in Mosques, hospitals, schools, and market places?

    No we always understood the motives of the extremists in the Muslim world, it just didn't seem likely at the time that we would be combatting those extremists in a previously autocratic and secular nation.

    A LOT of people saw this coming..Unfortunately, the Utopian Believing neo cons told everyone it would be a cake walk with flowers being thrown at US troops...

  6. #6
    flushingjet
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bman
    Did the US fail to understand Muslim willingness to murder each other in the name of Allah by blowing up women and babies in Mosques, hospitals, schools, and market places?

    No we always understood the motives of the extremists in the Muslim world, it just didn't seem likely at the time that we would be combatting those extremists in a previously autocratic and secular nation.

    A LOT of people saw this coming..Unfortunately, the Utopian Believing neo cons told everyone it would be a cake walk with flowers being thrown at US troops...
    Sorry-Iraq was majority Shiite who are not secular
    The main reason for taking down Iraq was not to set them free

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbanyJet
    Isn't the 'war' in Iraq for the most part over and has been over for a while?
    No. There isn't big conflicts. The insurgency laregly employs hit and run tactics. They evaluate and exploit weakness.


    Quote Originally Posted by AlbanyJet
    Are US troops essentially garrisoned in Iraq? There's no real battles being fought. No ground being taken or lost. Seems to me US troops are only there patrolling to prevent Muslim ethnic cleansing in various areas and neighborhoods.
    No. It would be nice. In our sector, we ran it for the irst nine months that we were here. First it was all us, then the Iraqi ARmy (IA) as they got better took more and more responsibility. This past June, they took over our sector South of Baghdad. This allowed us to shift some US troops to another area and slowly take control of that. The only ones really 'garissoned' are the support troops at Camp Liberty and Stryker in Baghdad. Some units use that as a launch point, but for th emost part they are FOBBITs. Of course, that is where all the good USO talent goes.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbanyJet
    And isn't Bush keeping forces in Iraq when they're not really needed there because it keeps the Democrats divided since Democrats don't know their a-double-s from a hole in the ground?
    We are needed. The Stryker Brigade from Alaska was extended for four months. Trying to mass produce and Army takes time. They are not contractually bound like US soldiers. If they want to leave, they leave. Given the attrition rate, the US is needed to stay to provide some stability in hot areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbanyJet
    Did the US fail to understand Muslim willingness to murder each other in the name of Allah by blowing up women and babies in Mosques, hospitals, schools, and market places?
    General Pace used a quote from a Saudi Prince/King from the 40s, "the middle east will never know peace until the people love their children more then their religion." IMHO it is not that we failed to relaize this, it is more the Iraqi's slowly coming around took longer and is slower the en expected.

  8. #8
    No we always understood the motives of the extremists in the Muslim world, it just didn't seem likely at the time that we would be combatting those extremists in a previously autocratic and secular nation.

    Iraq was about as 'secular' as Iran, "Allahu Akhbar" (God is great) was inscribed onto the Iraqi flag under Saddam, and the Ansar al-Islam, an extremist Sunni terror organization was given funds to kill Kurds and raid villages in the east. Iraq became a vaccuum for foerign jihdaists and terrorists to flock to to fight the United States, and as of August 2005 nearly 60,000 insurgents have been killed, according the the State Department.

    A LOT of people saw this coming..Unfortunately, the Utopian Believing neo cons told everyone it would be a cake walk with flowers being thrown at US troops...

    Are you delusional? I'm a neo-conservative, damn proud of it, and thought Iraq would be nothing short of a long grueling war. You can try again if you like but generalizations don't win arguments, especially false ones.

  9. #9
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    here's a question for ya:

    How arrogent does one have to be to believe they can succeed where Winston Churchill failed?

    wake up bro the war is over and lost and the reason why is because it was unwinnable to begin with

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,857
    Excellent arguments Xing, and I'm sure they would work on the rational. However....

  11. #11
    wake up bro the war is over and lost and the reason why is because it was unwinnable to begin with

    I believe the war is very winnable and until I am presented with evidence that says otherwise, the topic's talking points stand.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by XingDaorong
    I believe the war is very winnable and until I am presented with evidence that says otherwise, the topic's talking points stand.
    The evidence is that this is a democracy and history has proven you can't wage effective war in a democracy without the overwhelming will of the people.

    Bush never completely sold this war, he went ahead with what he had - half a country's support and an armed forces not big enough or properly equipped to deal with an urban guerilla resistance and here we are.

    Your principles are admirable but the proof is in the pudding. Everyday things get worse in Iraq not better - and even if we succeed in building this nation, what have we really achieved?

    im still waiting for the government to rebuild New Orleans... or Newark New Jersey, or North Philadelphia, or Trenton, or the Bronx... since when is it more important to build infrastructure and hand out endless welfare to ungrateful foreigners than it is to protect and take care of the needs of actual US Citizens?

    oh and the Churchill comment wasn't rhetorical. One of the greatest leaders in the history of civilization wrote these people off in the 1930's - H.W. Bush knew it was a lost cause and backed off - it takes a serious egomanic to think they can succeed where everyone else has failed.

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    There is something very sinister to my mind in this mesopotamian entanglement... week after week and month after month for a long time we shall have a continuance of this miserable, wasteful, sporadic warfare marked from time to time certainly by minor disasters and cuttings off of troops and agents, and very possibly attended by some very grave occurrence...Why are we compelled to go on pouring armies and treasure into these thankless deserts?"
    -Winston Churchill writing his Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, in August 1920.
    Britain left Iraq in 1932 and has been ruled by Sunni's in one form or another ever since.

  14. #14
    The evidence is that this is a democracy and history has proven you can't wage effective war in a democracy without the overwhelming will of the people.

    Has history ever seen a superpower attempting to democratize and empower a nation such as Iraq, in one of the world's most volitile regions? Has history ever had an example of a superpower marching into an autocratic and repressive Middle Eastern state and attempting to bring order and pass on sovereignty to a nation such as Iraq when the mission is completed? No on both counts, there is no conflict you can match to Iraq and make a fitting comparison to, nothing of this nature has ever been tried in the Middle East before.

    Bush never completely sold this war, he went ahead with what he had - half a country's support and an armed forces not big enough or properly equipped to deal with an urban guerilla resistance and here we are.

    You are wrong on both counts bitonti. Bush had most of the nation's support at the time of the invasion of Iraq, he doesn't now but "half the country's support" was what he had around early 2005. 265,000 Coalition soldiers backed up with practically unchallenged air support and plenty of armored divisions to boot were sent into Iraq, and swept Saddam's forces out with in a matter of weeks, and captured the tyrant within a matter of months. al-Fallujah and al-Qaim were the last strongholds the insurgency had unprecendented access to, and they were rooted out of the cities one by one. The insurgency's threatening role has been eclipsed by a new form of criminals, secatarian militias and death squads, and the simple difference between the two enemies is that the militias throw away their arms and run for cover when confronted by professional forces a lot faster than the insurgents do. The Iraqi Army's ranks have swelled to well over 270,000 (trained and equipped) and over 300,000 soldiers are expected to fall into that category by the end of this year. The insurgency is much less potent than it was in 2004 or 2005 as casualty rates for the troops are showing, they are still a major threat no doubt, but the militias in and around Baghdad are the ones that pose the biggest problem.

    Your principles are admirable but the proof is in the pudding. Everyday things get worse in Iraq not better - and even if we succeed in building this nation, what have we really achieved?

    How are they getting worse bitonti? Recently over 7,000 houses have been searched in al-Doura and Amiriya, Baghdad. The amount of attacks in Baghdad is not only dropping as over 7,000 more troops are being deployed into Baghdad, the reconstruction is continuing on time around the other parts of the country. Look I understand where you are coming from, you wonder why we had to invade a nation that posed no threat to our national security, you wonder why America must act as the world police under the 'Bush Doctrine', and you wonder why we haven't been able to get Iraq under control yet. I used to be ardently against this war, as I previously idenified with Socialism, but there is too much wrong with our world to stand by as pits are filled with the corpses of the innocent. By building Iraq and it's historically order-capable military up to high enough standards we have achieved two things historically rarely thought possible. We have firstly seen through the first nation to become a successful democracy since South Korea under Harry Truman, and we have given the people of Iraq a nation they can be proud of and speak their mind in (one less reason for ardent American hatred to persist and one more reason for Arabs to see that they are capable of having a voice in the way their nation is run).

    im still waiting for the government to rebuild New Orleans... or Newark New Jersey, or North Philadelphia, or Trenton, or the Bronx... since when is it more important to build infrastructure and hand out endless welfare to ungrateful foreigners than it is to protect and take care of the needs of actual US Citizens?

    You want the big government to start rebuilding Newark, Philadelphia, Trenton, and the Bronx now? What's the point of the federal government spending money doing the job our governors should be doing with all of the taxes they take from New York and New Jersey citizens anually?

    oh and the Churchill comment wasn't rhetorical. One of the greatest leaders in the history of civilization wrote these people off in the 1930's - H.W. Bush knew it was a lost cause and backed off - it takes a serious egomanic to think they can succeed where everyone else has failed.

    Tell that to Harry Truman and Douglas MacArthur, they achieved what people thought would never work.

    Britain left Iraq in 1932 and has been ruled by Sunni's in one form or another ever since.

    Hikmat Sulayman was a Kurdish Shi'a and he ruled Iraq as Prime Minister past 1932. This is far from an unwinnable situation.

  15. #15
    wake up bro the war is over and lost and the reason why is because it was unwinnable to begin with

    Winston Churchill failed at attacking Turkey in the Gallipoli Campaign in 1915, yet the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) have succeded moreso in attacking Turkey than he did. Winston Churchill may have been an amazing Prime Minister, but he was not a man without his own failings.

    Just because some failed doesn't mean that we cannot succeed.

  16. #16
    flushingjet
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti
    The evidence is that this is a democracy and history has proven you can't wage effective war in a democracy without the overwhelming will of the people.

    Bush never completely sold this war, he went ahead with what he had - half a country's support and an armed forces not big enough or properly equipped to deal with an urban guerilla resistance and here we are.

    Your principles are admirable but the proof is in the pudding. Everyday things get worse in Iraq not better - and even if we succeed in building this nation, what have we really achieved?

    im still waiting for the government to rebuild New Orleans... or Newark New Jersey, or North Philadelphia, or Trenton, or the Bronx... since when is it more important to build infrastructure and hand out endless welfare to ungrateful foreigners than it is to protect and take care of the needs of actual US Citizens?

    oh and the Churchill comment wasn't rhetorical. One of the greatest leaders in the history of civilization wrote these people off in the 1930's - H.W. Bush knew it was a lost cause and backed off - it takes a serious egomanic to think they can succeed where everyone else has failed.
    ?
    Man are you dense. Testa dura.
    1st of all, Bush had Congress' green light to go into Iraq.
    That covers the will of the people thing.
    Things get worse in Iraq daily?-only in your mind
    The improvements have been explained to you many times before
    If we build Iraq what have we achieved?-only what naysayers
    say couldnt happen, like in Japan or elsewhere
    What you talking about rebuild NO, NJ, etc etc?
    Obviously you have no idea how these once thriving areas
    went downhill, or how/why they continue to fail to govern themselves inefficiently
    You prattle about Churchill from 80 years ago
    but have no understanding about how socialism
    ran industrial production into the ground in the NE US
    starting as early as the mid 50s
    By your logic these are failed states
    And failed states dont deserve to be propped up, right?
    It takes a serious paranoiac to see failure where
    success exist

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti

    im still waiting for the government to rebuild New Orleans... or Newark New Jersey, or North Philadelphia, or Trenton, or the Bronx...
    While you're waiting, would you mind getting your lazy rear off the couch and doing something with your life?

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by sackdance
    While you're waiting, would you mind getting your lazy rear off the couch and doing something with your life?
    i do more before 7am than you do all day

  19. #19
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by XingDaorong
    You want the big government to start rebuilding Newark, Philadelphia, Trenton, and the Bronx now? What's the point of the federal government spending money doing the job our governors should be doing with all of the taxes they take from New York and New Jersey citizens anually?
    no i want them to take that money and rebuild Tikrit instead

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti
    im still waiting for the government to rebuild New Orleans... or Newark New Jersey, or North Philadelphia, or Trenton, or the Bronx...

    When was the last time you were in the Bronx Bit? Brooklyn Queens and the Bronx are finally recovering from the housing act during the great society. In another 20 years when all the project finally fall down that were built with that money we might see a full recovery.

    It was the federal government money handed out to crooked developers during the Great society and continued under Nixon that turned solid urban neighborhoods into unlivable cesspools. Low tax rates and interest rates have lead to redevelopment of almost all of those neighborhoods.

    Why would you possible want your tax dollars spent to rebuild NO which is in a dangerous hurricane and flood zone. I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of having tax dollars subsidize flood insurance for the rich and poor living and building in mud slide and hurricane zones. Let them bear the risk or pay fair rated insurance premiums if they want to live in those areas.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us