Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 136

Actually, there isn't a question. Pres. Bush is making a statement of 'fact' all be it from his perspective:

A lot of people say that this war is very similar to the Vietnam War because there is no clear distinction about the control over it. On one hand you have shown that you are unequaled invasion force, but as an occupying force without the help of Iraqis it is all futile. What is more is that Pres. Bush seems think that the US should be there for many years even though somewhere in the middle of this Thread we read many times about the US pullout - remember those days?

Maybe this is the ultimate goal. Keep them so busy on their own turf that they are too busy to come to the US - not, the world is too advanced for that. Communications, weapons and designs of evil men allow for way more effective infiltration by our own (people in our country that sympathize with Islamist) than we like to admit.

Iraq War Post

Oh yes, we are much more effective at killing each other from a distance than we were say 50 years ago or 100 years ago. However, I love the fact that whenever I see a Bin Laden video he is in a cave or bunker somewhere and is always on the move...never a minutes rest for the guy.

I agree that the US is a good invasional force, but will somewhat disagree with the statement that we cannot be a good occupational force. Our problem is that we do not commit enough to accomplish the second task, except for once that I can remember in our past...Japan. We also stayed in Japan a long time. An additional 30,000 troop has made this much of a difference. What if we sent over 60,000 more from the very beginning when US sentiment was pretty high?

I think the closest tie between this war and Vietnam is that the US Public wants out (not as strongly as Vietnam) of the war and there is no easy way to leave. We saw what happens in Vietnam if we just pack up and leave... As the violence diminishes, there can be some pullout of forces, but, as I said back then, we are going to be in Iraq for a long time unless we just agree to give up and let them sort it out themselves and whatever happens happens.

The 3 new 'stans (Sunnistan, Kurdistan and Shiistan) wont and cannot happen. I see that now as the Turks wont let a Kurdistan exist. The solution is pretty simple actually....stay for the long haul and try to help them get on their feet or leave and turn a blind eye to what happens when the new Iraqi Government tries to stand on its own legs for the first time.

Edited: Vincenzo on 21st Mar, 2008 - 3:41am

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

Wasn't he like that before? Our first intro to him was via some CIA video / audio / records where he was fighting the Russians. You should visit the "Bin Laden, Friend or Foe?" Thread. In fact I just updated it.

The Japanese are a different people to the Iraqis. The Japnese deal highly with a code of honor, I do not see any honor among Iraqis, they are willing to hurt their own people without a moment's notice. I think this is what the US did not count on.

What about the original reason --> WMD? In Vietnam it was I believe a supposed attack on US Navy vessels that never happened?

How long will the US be in Iraq, I think everyone is monitoring the US Elections over it.

Page 136 Iraq War Post

If you remember, when the Democrats took the majority in Congress, they were going to bring the boys home immediately. Well, a little over a year after they got comfy in their seats notice what hasnt happened...the boys are still over there. Honestly, I really dont think it matters who wins, there will be a US force in Iraq for several more years (barring a different major engagement in the world). If you are a Democrat elected to pull out the troops, fine, go ahead and do it. When you pull the troops out and there begins a slaughter of Iraqis that is caught on TV, do you want to be the one that lit the fuse? That reality, I think, sunk into the new majority on Capital Hill.

As far as WMD's, as I have written before, it was a reason but I dont think it was the major reason. Simply stated, there were over 1 dozen UN sanctions issued to Iraq and they all stated pretty much the same thing. Remember, Iraq promissed this upon signing a cease fire agreement. They thumbed their nose at the sanctions for years and pretended to have WMD's to keep Iran at bey. All Saddam had to do was let the inspectors complete their job (remember, they had years to do this...not just the time Blix was begging for) and account for all the missing materials that were on the inventory, but he wouldnt do it. Actually, just saying that they couldnt find the material or that they were searching would have been enough, but they wouldnt even address it...time in and time out. Each of the sanctions written said that if they were not complied to there war could resume. The last sanction did not make the others obsolete either as I have read on this thread...quite contrary, the last sanction actually included all previous sanctions (as had all the previous sanctions done for the ones before). The al-quida ties and the WMD's were thrown into the report by Powel to the UN at the very end...call it icing, but not the foundation (at least in my book).

I just remember that Bin Ladens video love messages to the world after 9/11 have looked more like he was sharing a spiders nest with Saddam than the ones prior to it.

Iraq War Post

Unfortunately, that is exactly what I am saying.

During World War many of the battles had no clear winner. There were times when the Allied forces were very close to losing, and there were battles that ultimately were won by the enemy. Should they have never been fought. I would say in some cases the tactical reason for fighting the battle was unclear. But even the battles that the Allied forces seemed to be losing or that ultimately were lost, were for a higher purpose, a fight against a radical, dangerous ideal.

This is why I support the War in Iraq even if it results in a temporary Status Quo in the larger battle against Islamic Radicalism. I suspect that there has been and will be positive results in the campaign in Iraq , and history will have to judge those who brought us to this point. I am not inclined however to support a pull out before some more actual gains can be achieved(It can be argued that there has been many advancements in the battle: the elections, decreased violence, very low casuality counts on the United States side as compared to other wars,.)

The United States may be wrong, or they may be right, to have entered the battle against Iraq. A pullout now however, will, in my estimation, make the world a much more dangerous place.

Post War Iraq

The Middle East is less stable now than it was before the Iraq War. Iraq, with Saddam Insane, was the buffer between all the other radical countries. He did not tolerate terrorist, especially Bin Laden. Why invade a country that was known to be the buffer/stabilizing country in the region? There are many, many tyrants in this world. Should we take them all down?

Everyone asks what this war has done for the Iraqi people. I would like to ask, what has it done for America? Since the reason for the invasion was supposedly for the benefit of America. Are we safer? The world in general has a much more negative view of us. Our main strength through out the world has always been our moral reputation, which now is pretty much in the tank. There is a whole new crop of Muslim Extremist lining up to fight the evil America. Afghanistan is becoming increasingly worse. The Middle East in general is less stable.

The Bush Administrations cowboy attitude has lost us many allies. We can't fight an "Ideal" by ourselves. And certainly not with military force. Not only was this war wrong in the first place, it continues to be wrong. I pray that our future leaders will learn the hard lessons from all the horrible mistakes made by this Administration. But I don't hold much hope of that.

Post War Iraq - Page 136

Most Iraqis Oppose U.S. Troop Presence but Admit Situation Improving

Iraq may not yet be a good place to live - but Iraqis say things are definitely a lot less bad than a year ago, when the U.S. committed an extra 30,000 troops to curb violence here. Fifty-five percent of Iraqis now say their own life is going well, up from 39 percent 12 months ago. And 62 percent say security in their local area is good, up 16 percentage points from last year. These results, from an ABC poll carried out across Iraq and released today, paint a picture of a damaged country that is gradually starting to pull itself together again.
Ref. https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4465682&page=1

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 136

US carries out air strike in Iraq

The US says it killed four militants in an air strike in Iraq, but Iraqi sources say dozens of people were killed.
Ref. https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/m...ast/7315937.stm