Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: War against Iraq

  1. #1
    This isn't a "should we have gone in to Iraq" question. It's more of a "did we go in right" question. The first time we went to war with Iraq we dropped bombs on them for over a month and by the time the ground troops went in the Iraqi "fighters" came running out of their holes, homes, and huts with their arms in the air more than happy to surrender. This time we dropped some bombs for two or three days and sent our troops in to fight an enemy that had not yet been demoralized and probably had a bit more reason to hate us (the first time we bombed them) and I think this is why our troops are meeting so much resistance. Anybody think we should have done it more like we did last time or was this the right way to go about it?

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    Not to be offensive but I think your question displays what is wrong with America today...everyone wants everything ASAP and wants immediate results and/or answers.

    Did we do it right? Well since many who were against the war stated prior to the assualt there would be "5000 body bags coming home" coupled with the fact that is took barely three weeks to finish (also add in fools like reporter Peter Arnett telling the Iraqi's they had the US against the ropes and American leaders were formulating new war plans) it was a complete success.

    Could we have done things differently afterwards? Yes....should we have continued the assualt against Fallujah? Yes....

    In a cockied way it is like trying to analyze the NFL Draft the Monday after it was completed...still to early to render a complete verdict to my mind.

    Everyone wants to point a finger saying the President lied about this or stretched the truth on that. He did say the war on terrorism is going to be a long struggle and until people realize this and realize Iraq was a piece of the war on terror people will continue to be pissed off.

  3. #3
    Yes and No.

    It would have been nice to have totally crush the Irag Army/Republican Guard by bombing them into eternity, but what would be left for the new Iraq to govern? I might be out on the limb, but I would guess the Republican Guard would retreat to the cities and we would have to decimate them to put the final nail in the coffin of Saddam and the Republican Guard.

    The benefit to that is the American lives saved, but the Iraq people would have to rebuild their country in addition to all the challenges they face today. We would basically trade one crappy situation for another. I think a similar void of a true government was the reason Afgahnistan fell into the state they were in when the Taliban took over.

  4. #4
    IMO this is what is militarily wrong with the Iraq situation

    1) going into Iraq prior to OBL capture/afghanistan rebuild - opens up a two front conflict, it's a cardinal rule of combat to be in as few fronts as possible... now where are we? OBL on the loose and forces in Iraq stretched pretty thin...

    2) once we are in Iraq - no real plan to rebuild, other then make sure the Oil rigs are taken care of... disbanded the Iraqi army without pay, they took their guns and went home... how many guys in charge have we gone through? at least two... the de-baathification was dumb cause we basically limit ourselves to the outcasts of society...

    there was many mistakes made, not just "we didn't attack falluja long enough" - the last thing we want to do is fight guerrilla warfare in an area the size of newark new jersey.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    44,247
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 11 2004, 02:11 PM
    [b] IMO this is what is militarily wrong with the Iraq situation

    1) going into Iraq prior to OBL capture/afghanistan rebuild - opens up a two front conflict, it's a cardinal rule of combat to be in as few fronts as possible... now where are we? OBL on the loose and forces in Iraq stretched pretty thin...

    2) once we are in Iraq - no real plan to rebuild, other then make sure the Oil rigs are taken care of... disbanded the Iraqi army without pay, they took their guns and went home... how many guys in charge have we gone through? at least two... the de-baathification was dumb cause we basically limit ourselves to the outcasts of society...

    there was many mistakes made, not just "we didn't attack falluja long enough" - the last thing we want to do is fight guerrilla warfare in an area the size of newark new jersey. [/b][/quote]
    Bit you are the King of Hindsight!! :lol: Lets see..Don't fight on 2
    fronts?? So you also had a problem with fighting Japan and Germany?
    Were there mistakes?? Sure as hell was!! Now name me a War when
    there wasn't...There were also people saying taking Bagdad alone would
    cost us 10 thousand dead!! I hate ALL War!! Now if the rest of Humanity
    would go along I'd be happy..But I don't see that happening anytime soon.. :(

  6. #6
    [quote][i]Originally posted by savage69[/i]@Jul 11 2004, 05:25 PM
    [b] Lets see..Don't fight on 2
    fronts?? So you also had a problem with fighting Japan and Germany? [/b][/quote]
    i knew some smart ass would bring that up - that's not as relevant to the conversation as much as Germany fighting Russia and the US at the same time... there were two sets of two fronts - those two fronts were tougher then the two fronts the US had to contend with... without Russia throwing thousands of bodies at the blitzkreig, burning their own land and s**t, the allies would have been crushed under their two fronts.

    that was one situation in history when two fronts was successful - only because the other side had two fronts as well - the war to end all wars - that one situation you bring up out of the hundreds of situations when fighting two fronts was a road complete failure... ;)

    also im not just the king of hindsight i said these things before they happened and when they happened. You guys are all so obsessed with your "side" being 100% right all the time so you disagreed then, saying how Iraq would be a walk in the park

    as for the ten thousand dead we aren't there yet but if we keep pissing people off we could get there in a few more years of nation building... it's not like GI's have stopped dying Savage

    that's the other real problem the Iraqi people don't want us there... we can't rebuild a nation and fight insurgency at the same time...

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,506
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 11 2004, 06:16 PM
    [b]
    that's the other real problem the Iraqi people don't want us there... we can't rebuild a nation and fight insurgency at the same time... [/b][/quote]
    Then lets go back to bombing them. At least it made some very good tv.

  8. #8
    Kangaroo F*cker
    Guest
    I think the real question should be why we went to Iraq in the first place? The first time we went those pricks decided to invade Kuwait so we kicked the crap out of them. Fair enough. They ran away, surrended and basically didn't put up a fight so we stopped.

    I just don't buy the "Operation Freedom" crap. If Iraq needed to be "free" what about North Korea and a bunch of African nations?

    I guess the government picks their own "wars for freedom"

  9. #9
    No, the Iraq war was a tactical mistake, and we are now paying the price in both afganistan and Iraq:

    The best option would have been to completely finish in Afganistan prior to any invasion or Iraq, or even more appropriately, Iran (who is both a more rigorous supporter of terrorism and is closer to having a home build Nuclear WMD). Once a Free, democratic Afganistan was settled, with all of the various warlords cought, killed and/or inprisoned, and importantly OBL in U.S. Custody or Dead, THEN we could move on to other areas of concern. If expaning the conflict into Pakistan was required to reach our goals there (including catching OBL, who now seems to operate with impunity in the Pakistani border area), then so be it. Pakistan is a state that supports terrorsim (obviously, since they will not permit us in to get OBL, AND they posess nuclear weapons.....a clear and presant danger to the US I would say).

    As it stands, we have a poorly done, half-finished job in Afganistan. While we still have U.S. Force in the field there, they are simply ineffective against the forces arrayed against them. They may catch/kill one or two enemies at a time, but they suffer equal losses, with no progress in sight. The Afgani government is weak, and is filled with corruption and many of the former warlords the U.S. wanted removed! Without a permanent U.S. millitary presence, the new Govt. would fail almost immediately. And we are making no progress in stopping AQ, as the majority of their forces appear to be in Pakistan, a nation we wil not invade (or even incur upon).

    Iraq is also not in best condition. While we have massive millitary presence there (not enough though IMO), we stilll are seemingly failing at stpping the insurgents and terrorists still inside the nation. While the new Iraqi Govt will be in decent shape as long as U.S. forces remain, we are making minimal progress in training the Iraqi's to defend themselves. Without a very long term U.S. Millitary presence in Iraq, I belive this new Govt. will also fail.

    So effectively, we have set up two new U.S. provinces, requiring U.S. oversight, U.S. millitary presence permanently (or something close to it) and ongoing massive influxes of cash to keep in any sembalce of "safe" for the people. And ongoing attrition (murder) of U.S. millitary forces will continue until our tactics change, and maybe even after that. There is no easy answer to our current position.

    And even now our leadership feels action may be warranted in both Iran and Syria, just to start. Our millitary is already spread very thin as is, and a re-instement of a form of the draft can only be around the next corner (or next invasion).

    With all that said, I don;t claim to have an answer for where we are today. We have dedicated ourselves to these places and yet we appear to not have the abillity or the strength to finish either place off. I don't know how to fix it, or at least how to fix the problems I see.

    I can only hope our leadership can see that our current tactics can only take us so far, and we can move to different tactics to address the problems we now face.

  10. #10
    Kangaroo F*cker
    Guest
    Warfish: I can't say we have "dedicated" ourselves to Iraq. I feel for the troops in Iraq. These poor bastards have been tasked with trying to keep the peace in a land where there are too many factions against them.

    We have no plan in Iraq. The dedication the government talks about is calling up reservists and keeping some Military Companies there for 18 months at a time. That is wrong.

    I would love Iraq to become a great democracy but it won't happen. After we leave the different factions will be fighting over power.

    Remember when the Berlin Wall fell? Has much changed in Eastern Europe? Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary, et al are all in all kinds of trouble. Crime, unemployment, corruption.

    Why do we try and shove our ideals down the throats over other nations?

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Gainzo[/i]@Jul 11 2004, 07:41 PM
    [b] I think the real question should be why we went to Iraq in the first place? The first time we went those pricks decided to invade Kuwait so we kicked the crap out of them. Fair enough. They ran away, surrended and basically didn't put up a fight so we stopped.

    I just don't buy the "Operation Freedom" crap. If Iraq needed to be "free" what about North Korea and a bunch of African nations?

    I guess the government picks their own "wars for freedom" [/b][/quote]
    I disagree...someone else put a post up a week ago which has been my thought the whole time. If you get a foothold in Iraq (a military base or precense) you are right between Syria and Iran, not far from Afgahnistan and close to the Pakistan/Afgahn border.

    It not only makes intelligence easier to come by but makes operations easier to run.

    Read WWII history; there is a reason America fought for the island of Iwo Jima and took it over at the cost of 7000 dead GI's. Iwo was nothing more than a volcanic island that they could've avoided but it offered them airfields and an easier base of operations on the way to Tokoyo

  12. #12
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY+Jul 11 2004, 10:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Come Back to NY @ Jul 11 2004, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Gainzo[/i]@Jul 11 2004, 07:41 PM
    [b] I think the real question should be why we went to Iraq in the first place? The first time we went those pricks decided to invade Kuwait so we kicked the crap out of them. Fair enough. They ran away, surrended and basically didn&#39;t put up a fight so we stopped.

    I just don&#39;t buy the "Operation Freedom" crap. If Iraq needed to be "free" what about North Korea and a bunch of African nations?

    I guess the government picks their own "wars for freedom" [/b][/quote]
    I disagree...someone else put a post up a week ago which has been my thought the whole time. If you get a foothold in Iraq (a military base or precense) you are right between Syria and Iran, not far from Afgahnistan and close to the Pakistan/Afgahn border.

    It not only makes intelligence easier to come by but makes operations easier to run.

    Read WWII history; there is a reason America fought for the island of Iwo Jima and took it over at the cost of 7000 dead GI&#39;s. Iwo was nothing more than a volcanic island that they could&#39;ve avoided but it offered them airfields and an easier base of operations on the way to Tokoyo [/b][/quote]
    So Iraq is a tactical toehold? A strategical grab?

    I would tend to agree. It certainly was not about liberation.

    It was largely about getting some serious footing in the heart of the Middle East, and the Bush/Cheney regime wanted it before 911.

  13. #13
    Kangaroo F*cker
    Guest
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY+Jul 11 2004, 09:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Come Back to NY @ Jul 11 2004, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Gainzo[/i]@Jul 11 2004, 07:41 PM
    [b] I think the real question should be why we went to Iraq in the first place? The first time we went those pricks decided to invade Kuwait so we kicked the crap out of them. Fair enough. They ran away, surrended and basically didn&#39;t put up a fight so we stopped.

    I just don&#39;t buy the "Operation Freedom" crap. If Iraq needed to be "free" what about North Korea and a bunch of African nations?

    I guess the government picks their own "wars for freedom" [/b][/quote]
    I disagree...someone else put a post up a week ago which has been my thought the whole time. If you get a foothold in Iraq (a military base or precense) you are right between Syria and Iran, not far from Afgahnistan and close to the Pakistan/Afgahn border.

    It not only makes intelligence easier to come by but makes operations easier to run.

    Read WWII history; there is a reason America fought for the island of Iwo Jima and took it over at the cost of 7000 dead GI&#39;s. Iwo was nothing more than a volcanic island that they could&#39;ve avoided but it offered them airfields and an easier base of operations on the way to Tokoyo [/b][/quote]
    According to your logic we are right between North and South Korea. That is working out well.

    Don&#39;t ever talk to me about WW1 and WW2. I lost many relatives in those wars. Australia and New Zealand lost more troops per capita than any other nations in the world. There was no draft. They all wanted to fight.

    April 25. Gallipoli.

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