iraq war; what do you think about it??

[infidel15]

Oil, Halburton company owned buy you know who.

dont forget no big contracts.
"i sell guns to this tribe, then i sell medicine and guns to the tribe the other one attacked, then i sell medicine and guns to the tribe that started it all."

 

[rambone]

 

[Pocketman]

The day we invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq, the GOP was within reach of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. NOTHING was more important to this great nation. Bush 43 invaded Iraq for one and ONLY one reason: revenge for his daddy. That's it. Bush 43 sacrificed the future of America and created the circumstances under which something called Barack Hussein Obama could possibly be elected as our President. In 2003, we were poised to finally be in a position to reverse 40+ years of liberal destruction of our way of life. GWB gave it all away to avenge his daddy. May George W. Bush rot in hell. Edcuate yourself on what was happening in America in 2003 and how it was all destroyed by this traitor. A firing squad would be too good for him.

Amercia gave away any chance of a future the day we invaded Iraq. For what? NOTHING. We gave it all away for nothing.

Perhaps a bit stronger than I may have worded it, but you do make a good point. We had no reason to invade Iraq and have gained little, if anything, as a result.

Oil, Halburton company owned buy you know who.

Well, perhaps someone gained something.

 

[.45 Dave]

I don't know. I've wrestled with this to as to whether or not Iraq was the country we should have attacked. On one hand, we weren't about to do anything to Saudi Arabia which most of the 911 attackers were from because of the oil. On the other hand, had we attacked another country in the area then we would have had Iraq with the 4th largest army in the world (if I remember correctly) sitting right next to us. We could have been fighting on two fronts. I could care less about Afghanistan. People, beside the Afganis, have been fighting over it for a thousand years and so far no one has conquered it because it isn't governed like most countries. It's all tribal and spread out. The "government" there has no real power outside the major cities. So I don't know what the best course of action was. BUT, having committed to a war we should have gone in, leveled it, and got out. Just my .02.
I swear we would have lost WWII (or it would still be going on) if we fought it like we fight the wars today!

 

[lowriderjim]

I believe that we do not want to fight any foes on American soil. This includes communism and terrorism.
In Iraq, I believe that we needed to remove Hussein and Bin Laden but we have extended these situations far passed these accomplishments.

If we look at Vietnam as an example, we accomplished little or nothing in 10 years except spend a lot of money and lose 56,000 brave young men. We should have learned a lesson.
Yes, I am a Vietnam veteran and served without question. At that time I thought the government knew things I did not understand but I no longer believe that.
In 1975 my unit was sent to process Vietnam refugees. During this time i had extensive opportunity to discuss the situation with a refugee that came from a position to know what was the situation was.

Sorry for the rambling but i feel strongly about this "situation".

 

[cobber]

When you intervene in another nation's affairs, even to do right by them, eventually you have to leave and can't call the shots any more.

We wouldn't have wanted the French Army to stay on after 1783. Once the French got past the satisfaction of irritating the British, they probably found us to be perfidious (when we started encroaching on their other NAm territory, for example).


Iraq and Afghanistan were destined from the start to end badly. Hardly needed a soothsayer to figure that out...

 

[rbsangler]

Oil, Halburton company owned buy you know who.

Owned by the board of directors and the stockholders, better check all of our 401 k accounts. The facts surrounding the "no bid" contracts secured by Haliburton truly need to be made public, no way the Mass Media was going to tell the truth about it. The Media did an incredible job of under informing the public about these contracts, and the right wing political party did a very poor job of correcting it.

 

[BE Mike]

I believe that we do not want to fight any foes on American soil. This includes communism and terrorism.
In Iraq, I believe that we needed to remove Hussein and Bin Laden but we have extended these situations far passed these accomplishments.

If we look at Vietnam as an example, we accomplished little or nothing in 10 years except spend a lot of money and lose 56,000 brave young men. We should have learned a lesson.
Yes, I am a Vietnam veteran and served without question. At that time I thought the government knew things I did not understand but I no longer believe that.
In 1975 my unit was sent to process Vietnam refugees. During this time i had extensive opportunity to discuss the situation with a refugee that came from a position to know what was the situation was.

Sorry for the rambling but i feel strongly about this "situation".

After a while in Iraq, our troops were mostly engaged with "foreign fighters", were we not? I think that Al Queda sent these terrorists where they could more easily engage US troops. I still feel that our troops were fighting the terrorists "over there" rather than here. To all you vets of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, I salute you.

 

[nicajack]

Everyone on here should read what Marine Smedley Butler had to say about his career and war. ALL WAR! Follow the money! Then answer the question as asked. Oil owned both sides of the Whitehouse! What else could be expected.

 

[nicajack]

Every one on here should go read what Marine Officer Smedley Butler had to say about his career and war! Then maybe you should answer the question as asked. Follow the money! Oil owned both sides of the Whitehouse! DUH!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

We successfully rebuilt and reshaped the Japanese and Germans after WWII and the strategy we pursued in Iraq was designed to do the same thing; create a working democracy in the middle of a slew of dictatorships, which, it was hoped, would cause the idea of representative government to spread in the region. In one sense, we accomplished the mission - as seen in the overthrow of a number of dictatorships throughout the region. In a greater sense, we failed in our intention because we didn't have the national will to stick with the job until it was finished. We made mistakes trying to teach the Iraqis to govern themselves - as we did in Japan and, to a lesser extent, in Germany - but it took over 20 years to successfully transition the Japanese to self-government and we didn't understand their culture any better than we understand the Iraqis or the Afghanis. It was a valiant attempt, but I'm beginning to agree that, unless we're prepared to be in it for the long haul, we shouldn't try it again.

Our occupation of Iraq WAS a great Jihadist-magnet, though, and like others who've expressed their opinion, I believe it is always better to tear up someone else's real estate than fight over here.

 

[VN Vet]

Maybe I am getting to old to think about War, but I believe we should have all the Sons and Daughters of our Elected Officials from State Governors through the President of the United States to serve a minimum of four years in the Military and required to go and fight the bad guys for at least two years. I bet the War would be over quickly.

Oh, if the Elected official is less than 50 years old, their body is over there also to do the fighting for at least two years before their Elected Service to the Publis begins. I bet the AHs don't even run for office no more. Cluck cluck cluck.....

I going to stop now......this is getting me riled up just a bit.

 

[BE Mike]

Everyone on here should read what Marine Smedley Butler had to say about his career and war. ALL WAR! Follow the money! Then answer the question as asked. Oil owned both sides of the Whitehouse! What else could be expected.

The fact of the matter is in WWII, if our industry hadn't outproduced the Axis, we would have lost the war. On the other hand, greed must always be recognized as a human failing and must be controlled through legislation and enforcement of that legislation. OTOH I don't think everything that big companies do is bad. If it weren't for them, many regular folks wouldn't have jobs. We wouldn't have the technology we have today and some of that technology saves American lives. Class warfare, especially during bad times is easy to get stirred up, but it only benefits politicians.

I don't agree with General Butler's thoughts on isolationism, i.e. keeping our navy within 200 miles of the US coast. That was even a short-sided view, when he was around (circa 1930). During the 30's though, isolationism was a popular sentiment. Through the 30's, we sat on the side-lines and watched Hitler rise to power, build a massive military, invade sovereign nations and enslave and murder huge numbers of people.

IMHO, we live in a very small world. People are able to travel great distances in short periods of time and there is instant communications, even amongst the poor. We cannot afford to wait until war comes to our shores. Because of our free society, it is hard to identify and track down our enemies in our country. It is much better to let them come fight us on foreign soil.

 

[lucky4034]

I think these countries have proven that they have no ambition to stand up for their own freedom. We removed their oppressors and gave them all the time in the world to stabilize and establish a means to a free life.

We built them hospitals and schools. We help them structure a political system and we tried to organize a police and military and yet, they don't seem willing to fight for their freedom.

Its apparently much easier to just allow us to die for their country.


IMHO Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to me that we should not waste time trying to restructure someone elses country. Next time we go to war, we should just level the place, drop off a **** load of surplus weapons and then leave and let them figure it out. If we need too, we can come back 10 years and level it again and then rinse and repeat as often as necessary.

It seems so much easier and safer to just put these **** holes on like a 10 year schedule. Every 10 years, just roll in and shoot up the place and make the bad guys run for the hills and leave.

We took over Afghanistan in 2 weeks and removed the Taliban with minimal casualties. Then we spent the last 11 years and thousands of soldiers/marines trying to hold it down.

 

[cobber]

We successfully rebuilt and reshaped the Japanese and Germans after WWII and the strategy we pursued in Iraq was designed to do the same thing; create a working democracy in the middle of a slew of dictatorships, which, it was hoped, would cause the idea of representative government to spread in the region. In one sense, we accomplished the mission - as seen in the overthrow of a number of dictatorships throughout the region. In a greater sense, we failed in our intention because we didn't have the national will to stick with the job until it was finished. We made mistakes trying to teach the Iraqis to govern themselves - as we did in Japan and, to a lesser extent, in Germany - but it took over 20 years to successfully transition the Japanese to self-government and we didn't understand their culture any better than we understand the Iraqis or the Afghanis. It was a valiant attempt, but I'm beginning to agree that, unless we're prepared to be in it for the long haul, we shouldn't try it again.

Our occupation of Iraq WAS a great Jihadist-magnet, though, and like others who've expressed their opinion, I believe it is always better to tear up someone else's real estate than fight over here.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

 

[repeter1977]

Everyone says that they dont want us to be involved in other wars, but who has seen what war has done to an actual country? I would much rather another country take the brunt of battles and the war then another strike here in the US.
We can argue all day about if this was for oil (well, since the price didn't go down, and we didn't get any oil out of it, don't sound like it), or if it was cause we did not go all the way in 91, or if it was about WMD. I know that they have found WMDs at several times while I was in Iraq in 04, but, funny enough, the press actually NEVER wanted to hear about it. Or of course, they said that it was not enough. As for the WMDs, I could actually go on about the mass graves that littered the country, where hundreds of people were buried, but im sure no one would care, since they were just killed with regular weapons.
There was also the matter of terrorist training camps in the country. Yet again, there were several, including at least i believe 3 in Fallujah alone (its been since 04, give me a break if I dont remember all the details please). And these were not just tents set up in the desert, they were training facilities as well as what they showed on the terrorist videos.
Back to an earlier point, about the first gulf was in 91, should we have gone in then? well, its a little too late to second guess and Monday morning quarterback it.
Should we have kept letting Saddam get away with thumbing his nose at the UN and especially the US, no. Unfortunately the UN has absolutely NO BALLS unless the US is involved. If we are going to make people accept treaties, then something should be done when they break them, repeatedly.
Just my 2 cents worth. Most all of the veterans that I know that were there, think it was worth it. Are there some that don't, of course. In any group you will find some that are for any idea and some that are against it. Many of the veterans that I have known, had served multiple tours, and that was with them knowing that they could get out of the Army and not do it anymore, but they believed that it was worth it, their sweat, tears, blood and for a few of them, their lives.

 

[teddy12b]

My my experience back in '03 I was a young 23 year old E4 combat engineer. The country at that time still seemed to be looking for a fight as retribution for 9-11. I didn't follow politics much at all back then and I was following the naive idea that my president was going to have his facts right and surely wouldn't be sending troops into harms way without an honorable cause. I never saw any WMD's and I remember being shot at after "W" said the war was over.

Having walked through one of Saddam's palaces at the town of Al Hilla I really don't think Saddam's life was worth dirt. The man lived like a selfish king while his people suffered needlessly. I'm not sad for what happened to him. I am sad that it took the best our country has to offer as the price to bring it about.

I'm not proud that our country went offensively into a war that it didn't need to start, but I'm certainly not ashamed that when my country asked it of me, I went. I just wish those in power over our troops served with the same kind of honor as our troops did and we wouldn't be having these horrible messes.

The part that really gets me with these wars and we as a country are extremely successful when it comes to planning and executing the wars, but we're horrible at managing it after it's started. A couple of the guys I served with in Iraq were deployed to A-Stan a year or two later and about a month short of getting home they hit an IED. If it would have been WWII they would have been home by now, but instead our country is left with two widows, and a step son who's fatherless again. The cost to our country is that we continue to loose hard working real men, who should have lived to become fathers, and grandfathers.

To me in hindsight, these wars are not worth it and I 100% support Ron Paul's foreign policy because he was right when everyone else was wrong.

 

[Captain Bligh]

...
Should we have kept letting Saddam get away with thumbing his nose at the UN and especially the US, no. ...

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.

 

[spearheadersarge]

I definitely feel it was worth it. Iraq has been given a huge gift but will eventually come under Iran's control through it Shiite majority population. The mullahs in Iran are just waiting till they reach a tipping point to annoint one of their own (Al-Sadr) to grab control. Freedom once attained isn't easily relenquished. It is my hope that Iraq endures the violence till one comes along that crosses the religous boundaries and unites the country. Iraq is fortunate, it has oil and therefore money. Money can solve a lot of their problems once the sectarianism is eliminated. Afghanistan is a midieval throwback. Poverty and corruption have flourished for a millenium. It can not be saved, period! We need to exit post haste and leave them with this warning: If the terrorists return, we will level the place and make it a huge Middle Eastern wildlife habitat for goats and spiders and eliminate ALL potential terrorist volunteers using the latest and greatest nuclear means available! If we have to go back, we declare war on them all! If attacked again by any jihadists, we declare war on Islam and its fundamentalists fomenting attacks on us, no matter where they are! Make it real to them, delcare Mecca a non Muslim zone. Why defend everywhere when all we have to do is strike them where they live. Either peace prevails or their very way of life ends!!!

 

[level.eleven]

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.