Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 126

How so? The whole reason they used the A-bomb was because they said it would take long years to win because no matter how many Japs were killed more would come. They stuck in deep and they were willing to commit suicide if necessary. This sounds very similar to the Iraq situation. You cannot say it was different until you use a similar bomb on Iraq and then compare results.

Actually, the war is very similar in a lot of ways. The Japs made sneak attacks and hit the US in her heart. 9/11 hit the US as a sneak attack in her heart.

The US retaliated against the Japs and so too did Bush with Afghanistan and Iraq. My point here is... if the US had reached Japan and occupied they would have encountered the same difficulty they do now with Iraq - constant rebellions. However the US chose to end it quick with the use of the A-bomb. Again my point, with Iraq, there is no quick end because the culture of the people in this region is built on war and bloodshed just as it has been for the Japanese with their warlords.

It may seem like a strange argument, but for one looking in I see the similarities, I am just asking what will be different two years (The Democrats wants this) or ten years (seems like Bush Administration may take that) from now - so far no one can give me the answer.

Iraq War Post

I think you might be right, JB. But I do think the honor of the Japanese prevents them from killing women/children and attacking their own citizens. That's where I see a huge difference.

And I do think the mistake was that we have not struck hard enough at those who support terrorism. Quite frankly, Iran is one of them. It continues to send weapons to kill our soldiers, and ignores the United Nations. And the world has largely done nothing about it, other than to fret and worry that America might do something to stop Iran before it's too late.

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

Granted, yes, good point. However, I did mention earlier that I think a lot of those attacks on women and children are done by outsiders and not Iraqis for Iraq.

I won't touch Iran here as that is in it's own Thread. As for Iraq, I guess I am sad for those who pay most dearly for all of this: women and children. However, it is not something unique to Iraq or other war in general, it is just my disgust at war of itself and not necessarily that it is Iraq or the USA involved. However, as can be seen by my rants in the Studies of Islam Board I am quite angry about the justification of religion constantly being used by insurgents / Islamists to justify their attacks.

Page 126 Iraq War Post

It is an interesting point that you bring up JB. What differences will be made between a 2 year exit strategy or a 10 year one, or perhaps even longer. The whole idea of an exit strategy seems flawed anyway as it only gives the enemy a timeline of how much longer they have to endure.

I believe this to be a fundamental problem of the war in Iraq right now. We need to be more aggressive at cutting off the funding for terrorism and the states that are doing that. I don't believe the war in Iraq will end until these other terrorist states have also been dealt with. Will that even happen in 10 years, probably not. I personally believe we are in this for the long haul.

Rather off topic, but... The idea of changing their culture is somewhat ludicrous. The whole thing goes back to Isaac and Ishmael, and that is never going to change, but I digress.

Iraq War Post

Al-Malaki Angrily Blasts at U.S. Democrat Senators that Iraq Is NOT a U.S. Village

After U.S. Democrat senators blasted the Iraqi PM, and demanded that he be removed from office, al-Malaki angrily responded that these U.S. Democrats seem to believe that Iraq is America's village. And it's not.

Funny thing is that during Kerry's run against President Bush, Bush's policy was criticized by Democrats for treating Iraq as a puppet government.

https://www.macombdaily.com/stories/100304/...dracke001.shtml

Yet now, while Bush demands that Democrats respect Iraq's sovereignty, the Democrats are doing exactly what they claimed Bush was wrongfully doing. (Bush denied that he has ever treated Iraq as a puppet, always insisting it was a sovereign country.)

https://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...al-maliki_N.htm

Rather off topic, but... Personally, I don't think this belongs here but it's the closest thing I can find. I'd suggest this goes into a thread analyzing Democrat attacks on President Bush regarding Iraq.

Post War Iraq

HUSSEIN-LINKED 'TERRORIST' CAUGHT

Iraqi forces detained the suspected leader of a terrorist cell network believed to be funded by Saddam Hussein's eldest daughter, who is wanted by Iraqi authorities on terrorism charges, the U.S. military announced Monday.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/27/...cell/index.html

Post War Iraq - Page 126

The war in Iraq is quite different to World War II in several ways. Firstly, the Iraq War has nothing to do with 9/11 so to link these two events is wrong. Saddam openly hated Bin Laden, the two have never liked each other, they come from totally different ideological backgrounds.

Secondly, the Iraq war was started and finished by the West. What is happening now may be a side effect of the invasion and removal of Saddam, but it is a different internal conflict. It is not really what Bush and his allies began or planned. It's a power struggle between warring Shite and Sunni factions, the former heavily linked to the Medhi Army and Iran, which has arisen as a result of a power vacuum. There seems to be this misguided belief that Iraq is about the War on Terrorism, whatever that term means. It's not, this is merely political speak to scare American citizens into supporting US involvement.

Sure there are some remnants of terrorist organisations which are using this opportunity to advance their causes, but the majority of the violence is between warring sects inside Iraq. Whether they are partly funded by Iran or other countries doesn't hide this fact. Going after Iran in a violent fashion would be a grave mistake by the already overstretched US military. Iran is a far more powerful opponent than Iraq and a further war would massively destabilise the region.

I don't think the US pulling out is a sign of failure. This war was a failure before it even began. The whole invasion and its complete lack of planning is a failure. A pullout would be more symbolic than anything else. What has to be done now is what is in the best interest of Iraq and not the US or anyone else. That is really what should be considered, not this nonsense about the terrorists winning if we withdraw.

I too find it amusing that both sides of politics in the US are trying to win an election based on their policies in Iraq. I hate to say this, but what the US does in Iraq will not lead to an improvement of the US society domestically. Does anyone else find it a strange way to win votes?

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 126

I disagree. The United States declared a war on terror. President Bush promised to strike at both terrorists and those who support them. Pre-war Iraq admitted to funding terrorism, and attempted to assassinate President Bush.

How could a war on terror not include one of the chief state sponsors of terrorism?

I do not think it novel to consider that enemies join to fight a common enemy. Russia and China, once bitter enemies, are now united to confront the West. And Russia attacked Iranian allies during its invasion of Afghanistan, and now is one of its top protectors against U.N. action. In fact, America once helped pre-war Iraq (a bitter enemy). It's happened before. It will happen again.

I agree. The mission of removing Saddam from power really was accomplished. The new challenge is empowering a stable Iraqi government.

I completely disagree. The presence of U.S. troops in Iraq brings terrorists there. And those terrorists are pissing off good Iraqis. While removing U.S. troops would likely result in a decrease in terrorists in Iraq, I am sure they would follow U.S. troops where ever that may take them. They want to kill Americans. I'd rather they attack are armored/armed forces than people in business buildings.

I think the war against Saddam's government was a complete success. What is not is the establishment of a stable democracy. And we need to stay until it's stable enough for us to leave. Otherwise, we are foolishly abandoning innocent Iraqis to further atrocities.

Disagree.

Heartily disagree. While some Republicans and Democrats do this, many do not, including Senator Lieberman and President Bush. Each too a stand in favor of the Iraqi war which prejudiced their chances of election. Yet they kept firm and argued why they were right. When American/world opinion strongly opposed the troop surge (claiming it would fail), President Bush stood his ground. And now we are faced with evidence the troop surge is working.

I disagree. If a stable Iraqi democracy is formed, it will give an impetus towards peace in the Middle East. It is one less enemy of Israel (the area's only other true democracy). Already, Arab reaction has been favorable, with Saudi Arabia voicing a desire to reach peace with Israel. Peace in the Middle East will help the United States in its domestic affairs. (Have you noticed the price of gasoline lately?)

Edited: tortdog on 28th Aug, 2007 - 5:40pm